The title above, FULLY sums up the Royal Navy which I joined in 1953.  However, Ganges had a small smattering of Maltese boy's, but the war years and the King's gift of the George Cross to the Island of Malta, made them very much part of the British scene, adding a suntan to the White bit ! Thus, with the exception stated, the Navy, or perhaps more specifically, Naval Officers [the Dartmouth kind - those who go on to be "the Ruler of the Queen's Navy"] - so that rules out the Maltese boy's anyway - were unashamedly, all those things in my title above, with the addition of the word VERY placed at the beginning.

I am not complaining mind you, in fact that is how I liked it, and yearn for those days to come back.

When I left in 1983, things were starting to change, but the title was still relevant [by and large], only that in the early 80's without the word VERY and a small letter for each capital letters above.

Handling research documents of that post-war period leaves no doubt as to the modus operandi of the Navy, although it is true that much of the consequences of being all those things above, is implicit and rarely explicit except for colour of course.

Very recently, I decided to add a section to this my web site about my religion whilst in HMS Ganges, and would have done so had I not experienced what follows when searching the national archives.  Before I move on to that, I am going to return to the title of this page in order that I can reduce it, to leave me just one subject to talk about.

Being white in colour and a product of Dartmouth suggested coming from a social class usually with some 'dosh' in the bank, and being British....well, when all is said and done, we are talking about the Royal Navy.....as British as one can get.  Put the two together and the blame lies back with the Angles and Saxons and something we accepted as being a fait accompli at the start of our history.  It was [and is] very vulgar to talk about money, but the class one belonged to was obvious the minute one opened one's mouth to speak. Moreover, 'proper' officers of those days, and certainly the ones which influenced my early naval career, wore no coloured cloth between their stripes, and were overtly and profoundly respected as being executive officers. On a daily basis at Ganges, we also saw doctors, dentists and school masters [Instructor Officers] all of whom wore coloured cloth between their stripes [respectively, scarlet, orange and light blue] and obviously they too were respected, but, too near to the doctors, dentists and school master one had so recently left behind during our school days, and so were not held in awe, and the respect, whilst  profound for their occupation, was not so for their naval status vis-à-vis executive officers. Other officers were also seen but less frequently wearing a white coloured cloth between their stripes,  indicating that the were from the supply and secretarial branch.  These were the officers who actually handed over our wages to us, so their level of awe was as obvious as it was transient. As for the other officers, I don't recall ever having seen men of cloth [except padres which I will mention soon] with colours silver grey, maroon, dark green, purple or dark blue, from, respectively, shipwright and constructor branch, wardmaster [ward as in hospital], electrical branch, engineer [mechanical] branch and ordnance [weapons/ammunition etc.] 

Politics, like money, were never discussed by officers in front of ratings, and one can only assume that the wardroom had the same taboo as did the lower deck, namely that religion and politics were subjects to be avoided, added to which, albeit tongue-in-cheek, were areas like borrowing and lending money, gambling, sexual jibes, taunts and slights, and behaviour likely to lead to altercations. Whereas it was assumed, simply because of the times in which we lived, that all officers were Tory [Conservatives] it was just that, an assumption only. Most of the lower deck in the post-war period were ambivalent, but all I believe, upper and lower decks, were conscious that the Government of the day were pre-occupied in putting to right the effects of WW2 rather than being engaged in political bear-baiting.

As for being MALE, that is exactly what I mean! Heterosexuality was one of those criteria  then  established for naval men , and those criteria were used to form THE moral basis of the Royal Navy in those days. Those of a different leaning, kept their heads well down and a massive lock on their closet. There was only one punishment for the unwise defaulter. Of course, here too, I also mean that women were not part of the Royal Navy, although they  had an important role to play in the WRNS and the QARNNS working directly with and alongside the Royal Navy.  How old fashioned it is to say now, that the women who served in these Services exercised the moral standards followed the vast majority of the female population, which were high at a time when promiscuity was the exception rather than the rule.  Nevertheless, I have no doubt that when fitting, the norm was heterosexual and that all in the Naval Services were of one opinion on this matter.

That leaves me with just Christian, and if one wasn't one, one was a non-believer and not of another religion, such were the times of which I write. Christianity covers many religions, but fair to say of the Navy, it concentrated on the main sub-religions, and even then, whittled them down to a manageable portfolio.  I have to say,  although some might be offended, that the Navy, mirroring Britain as a nation,  has a well defined pecking order, led then as now, by the Anglicans [today's {2006} Chaplain-of-the-Fleet is an Anglican] where the declared faith  Church of England [CofE] was the norm.  Number two in the pecking order for all practical purposes [as you will read] was what the Navy called the CofS, the faith, Church of Scotland.  To this group belonged all those who were not CofE or Catholics [Roman Catholics], which covered Church of Scotland proper and all other Free Churches.  Apart from the Church of Wales and the Church of Ireland, this group really covered non-conformists - Methodists, Congregationalist, Baptists - but to my uncertain knowledge or recollections, not the Salvationists, Brethren's, Witnesses or any other of the less well known Christian religions:  whether men from such religions joined the armed forces I am not sure. The third and final group were the Catholics, who, bless them, were officially ostracised by the Navy [SEE WHY AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE] and its lead God-slot advisers, the Anglicans.  So, three groups only: no other choices and no other religions tolerated or accommodated. However, believe it or not, only Number 1 and 2 groups could worship together, and really this was to do with the Pope and the Church of Rome - absolutely no ecumenical spirit in the Navy - far from it - and no room in the "naval church service" for Mary, Mother of Jesus. Thus, when the men were mustered as a ships company, the naval procedures were carried out for ceremonial reasons or for routine discipline musters, and the men were addressed by the senior naval officer present.  When he had finished, the parade commander would then order all Roman Catholics to leave the parade ground, upon which they would double [run] to an appointed place [behind a building] out of sight of the parade ground/muster point, where the senior Roman Catholic would conduct prayers in accordance with the rules of the Church of Rome. Meanwhile, back on the parade ground, the Chaplain [CofE] or the Chaplain [CofS] - both also called Padres, would mount the dais, hats would be removed, and prayers said.  On completion, hats would be replaced, the Catholics ordered back to their positions on the parade ground at the double, and, sometimes, PT [physical training] exercises would begin for ten minutes or so. How fulfilling ! The head refreshed with new orders for the day; the heart refreshed according to ones beliefs, and the body refreshed by physical jerks. Catholics were/are known in the Navy as 'left footers". There is conjecture about where this comes from, but some say that the Irish [and by implication Catholics] used a spade to dig starting with their left foot - a reference to bog-trotters or peat diggers - whilst others will tell you that if a phalanx of marching men has one man out of step with the rest [swinging, say, his left arm forward when everybody else is swinging theirs backwards] that man is a Catholic VISIBLY out of step with everyone else - Christians only of course!  I am sure that it is not true, and certainly this religious divide did not impair friendships amongst the boys of Ganges where I had good Irish [and other non-Irish] Catholic friends not to mention several Maltese boys.  HMS Ganges catered for the three groups mentioned and each had its own Church on site.  When numbers were in the minority, they were allowed ashore to worship at a civilian Church.

I will just briefly mention that I was brought up as a strict Methodist - you know, Church three times on a Sunday and a couple of times midweek - and by the time I had joined the navy when aged 15 I had been confirmed [if that is what the civilian Church called it fiftyfour years ago] in my own childhood Church. Very early on in Ganges I got to know that taking confirmation classes with the Padre got me out of certain duties like 'clean ship' [cleaning the mess in which forty of us lived], but more importantly, the confirmation would be held at the Ipswich Methodist Church followed by 'big eats' - we were NOT well fed as boys at Ganges. I was a diligent and punctual member of the confirmation class, and eventually was confirmed [for the second time] and ate my fill of sandwiches, buns, jelly and ice cream, something unheard of in our austere dining hall.  Sometime later, a new CofS Padre joined, and he being a Methodist called together his flock to introduce himself - his name was the Reverend Leslie Truelove.   He told us gathered boys of his proposal for confirmation classes which would be in Ipswich etc etc at a time to be notified. When the time came, the appeal of big eats did not attract many boy's to "see the light".  Leslie Truelove trawled for suitable candidates and notwithstanding that I had already "seen the light" twice, it was put to me that I might like to tag along.  I didn't need much coercion and repeated the bit above, coming out as a much decorated exemplary boy with three gongs to my name.

I used to feel guilty about these episodes in my life, and often wondered about the records the Padre must have kept about me, and I am sure, other habitual oath takers. I figured that trying it on for a fourth time [for the eats only of course] might make him suspicious, or, worse still, he might suggest that I transfer to the Lay Readers Branch attending to the spiritual needs of those who frequented places like Agnes Westons [in Portsmouth] and Sophia Wintz in Devonport.  I need not have feared.  Records!  What records?

Question to a member of the National Archives 52 years on. Have you any records of Confirmations at HMS Ganges in the period October 1953 to February 1955?  Yes we have, and they cover from the 13th of September 1953 to the 24th March 1955, so a little before and after your requirements.  Super, I said and does this cover all activities in HMS Ganges at this time.  Yes, it does.

After a re-ask, it would seem that the Anglicans, the number one Church, kept records of their folk and lodged it with the authorities who eventually passed it onto the National Archives at Kew, but the CofS and the Catholics didn't seem to bother, unless one is hidden in the Church of Scotland somewhere in Edinburgh or Glasgow and the other is adorning some shrine in Rome as an icon to the Patron Saint of good Catholic naval boy's.

Anyway, I am publishing the HMS Ganges record for the Anglican faith, in the above mentioned time-frame, when the sky pilots [our naval name for Vicars, Padres and Chaplains]  were the Rev B R Beasley MA, Rev H I Clutterbuck MA and Rev N M Denlegh-Maxwell.  For Group 2 the CofS - and where is my record you guys - were Rev L Truelove and Rev P J Moffett.  For the outsiders, Group 3, it was the Father  F Hemus.

As a matter of interest, in my time at Ganges, apart from my two Divisional Officers of Rodney Division viz, Captain D L Roberts Royal Marines [for this reasons we were called the Royal Rodney's] and Commissioned Gunner G W Glyde Royal Navy, the two officers who had greatest affect on me  were the Parade Commander and the Establishment Gunnery Officer Lieutenant Commander D H Samson Royal Navy and the O.I.C. of the Signal School, none other than my namesake, Lieutenant Commander D O Dykes Royal Navy. Imagine my surprise when almost the first two names mentioned in the record are for the baptism for their respective children whilst serving in Ganges.

Assuming that you are a goodie [like me?] and that you were either baptised or confirmed, then have a look at the following PDF file which also includes all the officers names of HMS Ganges in 1954. This is a large file when first opening it [nearly 5 MB] but on subsequent openings the download will be much quicker. HMS GANGES RECORDS 1953 TO 1955.pdf. Just check that the file, once opened, doesn't open onto your screen behind your existing window i.e., if you cant see it when all downloading indications have finished, minimise your current screen. Of some interest here is the listing of the officers names, which in the 1950's unlike today, take account of the branch in which they serve and not their status or rank held. Notice in particular the very small EXECUTIVE TEAM running this massive training Establishment; 1 Captain, 1 Commander, 9 Lieutenant Commanders, 1 Captain Royal Marine, 1 Lieutenant Physical Training, 1 Lieutenant Pilot and 2 Executive Lieutenants, a total of 16 officers.  With 2000 boys under training, this works out at 125 trainees per officer. The rest of the officer staff totals 101.  The order of  precedence is executive, engineering, chaplains, instructor branch, surgeon, dentist, supply, commissioned officers from the ranks [in order executive, regulating, shipwright, engineer, wardmaster, writer, cookery and catering] the the QARNNS Sisters in order of rank.


This article comes direct from HANSARDS [House of Commons] taken from a debate on Naval Estimates.  The date is 2nd March 1900



The other day the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty was good enough to say that a statement would be made as to the position of the Roman Catholic chaplains in the Royal Navy, and that an explanation would be given as to what is intended to be done by the Admiralty with regard to the Catholic Church in this matter. I asked a question of the First Lord of the Admiralty a few days ago on this subject,* and the reply which he gave to me led to some misunderstanding amongst those interested in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said the Admiralty had made arrangements which had met with the approval of the; Catholic hierarchy, and practically that nothing more was to be done.


No, I did not say that they had met with their approval, if I conveyed that impression it was not what I intended. I cannot remember the exact words which I used, but I stated that the matter had been settled in consultation with the clerical authorities.


What the right hon. Gentleman has just stated is, to some extent, a justification of the statement which I made a moment ago that some misunderstanding exists on this *See page 371 of this volume (19 Feb.).  matter. The right hon. Gentleman says I he did not state that he made arrangements which had the approval of the Catholic hierarchy, but he certainly led us to understand that the arrangements which had been come to were made in consultation with the Catholic hierarchy, and consequently they were satisfactory. Such undoubtedly is not the case, because, as the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury already knows, no later than the other day a very strong statement was made on this question of Catholic chaplains in the Navy by so high an authority as Cardinal Logue in Ireland, who oven went to the length of pointing out to the parents of Catholic children in Ireland that it would be dangerous to the religion of their children if they allowed them to join the Royal Navy. I do submit that, when you have an ecclesiastic of the high authority of Cardinal Logue in Ireland making a statement calculated to discourage the Catholics of the country from joining the Navy on the ground that no provision is made for their spiritual needs and welfare, it is quite time for the Admiralty to pay serious attention to the matter. I do not propose to enter at length into the grievances of Catholics on this matter, because my hon. friend the Member for; East Mayo has over and over again placed them before the Committee. All that we claim is that Catholic chaplains in the Navy should be put on the same level as Catholic chaplains in the Army. In the Army there is no complaint whatever in this matter. Catholic chaplains have a recognised status; they hold commissions, their position is well defined, and, as far as I know, they are treated in every respect as are chaplains of other denominations. That is not the case in the Navy. Catholic chaplains are not on the same footing as Protestant chaplains, and are not given the same facilities for ministering to their co-religionists.

ADMIRAL FIELD  Sussex, Eastbourne

They are, when in harbour.


It occasionally happens that a man may require religious ministration when he is not in harbour. You cannot expect a man not to want religious ministration except when he is riding at anchor. Considering the number of Catholics in the Navy, I think it is not in accordance with the spirit of the age  that Catholic chaplains should not be placed on an equality with the chaplains of other denominations. I am much interested to hear the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, because on it will depend whether my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo will take further action in this matter.


When this question was discussed on previous occasions, my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty expressed his sympathy with the views put forward on behalf of Roman Catholics in the Navy, and his great anxiety to meet them as far as possible. The subject is one of very considerable difficulty, as I think the hon. Member himself will be prepared to acknowledge. I have not, however, risen for the purpose of referring again to the old difficulty, but rather to tell the hon. Member what we have done. We have been in communication with certain authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, with a view to arranging a more satisfactory method for meeting the religious needs of Roman Catholic officers and men.


Have you been in consultation with the Irish hierarchy as well as with the English hierarchy?


No, Sir; we have had no direct communication with the Irish hierarchy. It is one of the difficulties of dealing satisfactorily with this question, and it appears to be very difficult to find any central authority empowered to speak for the Roman Catholic Church. We have tried to deal with the Roman Catholics in the same spirit and as far as possible in the same way as we have dealt with the Wesleyans and the Presbyterians. In the case of the Wesleyans we were much assisted by the fact that they have an association with a permanent secretary, who was able to keep us fully informed as to their views, and with whom we were able to arrange. I wish there were some similar Roman Catholic association whose views would be binding over the whole Roman Catholic Church, and who would have authority to speak for it. No little part of our difficulty has been that after we had arranged to meet the views of what we believed to be the highest authorities of the Roman Catholic Church in England, we found other authorities claiming the right to speak in respect of particular cases, and who did not consider themselves bound by the opinions of the authorities we had consulted.

DR. FOX  King's County, Tullamore

Do not the vast majority of the Catholic sailors in the Navy come from Ireland?


Yes; but the hon. Member will see that in order to deal freely and fully with this matter it is important, if possible, that the persons representing the Roman Catholic Church should have easy access to the Admiralty and that the Admiralty should have easy access to them. Unfortunately we cannot find in Ireland an authority to whom that would apply. We have no desire to exclude the views of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland from our consideration, but from the circumstances of the case the communications, often verbal, must be made and the decision arrived at in London. Now, what we have endeavoured to do is to give fixed allowances to Roman Catholic priests for ministering to the Fleet at all our principal depots throughout the world. We have arranged twenty-one of these fixed allowances, varying from £200 in the case of each of our three great home depots—Portsmouth, Devonport, and Chatham—and also Malta, down to £25, which is really only a grant-in-aid given to Army chaplains for receiving Roman Catholics from the Fleet at their services. The chaplains at Portsmouth and Devonport begin at £175 a year, rising after five years to £200. They are established officers, and when they retire they will receive a pension on the ordinary conditions. The chaplains at Chatham and Malta are paid on the same scale, but are not entitled to pensions. Altogether there are four allowances of from £175 to £200, four of £100, three of £75, five of £50, and smaller grants. Where no fixed allowance is given, the Roman Catholic chaplain is paid for the services he renders to the men of the Fleet in proportion to the number of men to whom he ministers, and if the service is a special service for  the men of the Fleet a further special payment is made. I think, therefore, the hon. Member will see that we have done our best to meet the wishes and needs of Roman Catholics in the Fleet. We have proceeded on exactly the same lines as in the case of the Wesleyans and Presbyterians, except that the grants to Roman Catholics are more numerous than the grants to either the Wesleyans or the Presbyterians, and even more numerous than to the two combined.


Is not the complaint that there are no Catholic chaplains on board ships in the Navy left unmet? May I ask if the rank of the Catholic chaplains is the same as that of the Protestant chaplains?


Yes, Sir, it is perfectly true that the question of Roman Catholic chaplains with the Fleet at sea is left untouched. That is another branch of the subject. On previous occasions my right hon. friend stated his anxiety to do what he could, but at the same time he pointed out the difficulties in the way. We cannot undertake to find accommodation on board our ships for Presbyterian, Wesleyan, and Roman Catholic chaplains. The proportion of Roman Catholics in the Navy is about eight per cent., that of Wesleyans about six per cent., and that of Presbyterians something less. Roman Catholic officers in the Navy would be the first to admit that it is impossible to make arrangements by which Roman Catholic chaplains should be borne on a ship's books or be accommodated on board ship at sea. Arrangements might be made for Roman Catholic priests to accompany or follow the fleets, and remain at the places where the fleets have a station, so as to be handy for service. We did that in the Mediterranean last year, and though the results were not all that could have been desired, I hope that they will be satisfactory next year. The Hon. Member alluded to a pastoral which Cardinal Logue issued the other day, a notice of which I admit I saw in the newspapers with the most profound regret. I cannot but hope that the Cardinal, seeing the attempt which the Board of Admiralty has made to meet the wishes of his church, will see fit to withdraw the opinion he has expressed. I can only say that if that opinion were to be  widely followed throughout the southwest of Ireland, and if the result was that the recruits now obtained from that part of the country ceased to join the Navy, the Admiralty would of necessity have to withdraw the training ship from Queenstown, just as on a previous occasion the training ship "Ganges" had been withdrawn from another port when the Navy ceased to obtain any number of local recruits there. I think that the pastoral of the Cardinal must have been issued under a misunderstanding, and having regard to the spirit in which the Admiralty has striven to meet the wishes of the Roman Catholics, and the fact that at any rate the department has made a considerable advance on recent practice in the direction the hon. Member desires, I trust we shall not hear of any more demonstrations of this kind.


The statement of the hon. Gentleman is extremely interesting, and shows that some sort of attempt has been made to deal with the Roman Catholic seamen, but the last part of his statement will be received with great dissatisfaction in Ireland; because it means that unless the claim which the Roman Catholics have made through Cardinal Logue is withdrawn, unless Roman Catholic seamen are satisfied to enter the Navy under conditions which they think unfair to their religion, then the training ship will be withdrawn.


I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; I cannot allow that interpretation of my words. I said I hoped that Cardinal Logue would see the propriety of withdrawing his ruling that Roman Catholic parents would not be justified in allowing their children to enter the Navy. The hon. Member himself will see, and Cardinal Logue will see, that if recruits are to be withdrawn it would be useless to keep a training ship at Queenstown.


The hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any desire to misinterpret him, but his statement just now, to my mind, amounts to what I said. What did he mean but that unless the claim we made through Cardinal Logue was relinquished the training ship would be withdrawn? Speaking as the first authority and head  of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Cardinal Logue has simply said that, if he mistook not, Protestants had their chaplains on each ship, while a Roman Catholic chaplain did not even accompany the squadron. The result was that Catholic sailors were left without spiritual guidance, that they might live as they pleased, and die as if they were not Christians; and this might account for the fact that so few Catholics were found in the Navy. The Cardinal added in his pastoral that if Roman Catholic parents permitted their boys to join the Navy before this want was remedied, they would be guilty of the violation of the sacred duty of securing the spiritual welfare of those committed to their charge. Now, really, I think it would be a most unreasonable thing for the hon. Gentleman to require that a single word or sentence of that statement should be withdrawn.


I expressed the hope, which I sincerely feel, that Cardinal Logue would cease to dissuade Irish Roman Catholics from entering the Navy, seeing what we have done, and what advances we have made towards meeting their requirements, and seeing that no other cleric of the Roman Catholic Church has ever thought that these dangers to their faith were incurred by the Irish Roman Catholics under the conditions now provided.


It is; not Cardinal Logue who has persuaded Irish Roman Catholics not to join the Navy; but it is the conditions insisted upon by the Admiralty which have dissuaded them. It is in the interest of the, Navy to remove these disabilities which: prevent parents sending their children into the Navy. I venture to say that if the hon. Gentleman asks the opinion of any Catholic Churchman, he will find that it is in complete accordance with that of Cardinal Logue. The hon. Gentleman did not tell us what the position of Catholic chaplains is compared with that of Protestant chaplains. Are they on equal terms?


There are two chaplains on the Establishment list who are in all respects similar—the chaplains at Portsmouth and Devonport. The other Roman Catholic priests are not chaplains in the same  sense as the chaplains on the Navy List: they are not men whose whole life is devoted to the service in the Navy. The Admiralty have no claim upon them for their whole time or to order them about from one place to another. But we pay them allowances as long as they are in residence at these particular places to minister to the religious wants of the sailors.


Are not a considerable number of the clergy of the Church of England in the position of commissioned officers in the Navy? There is not a single Catholic clergyman a commissioned officer. [Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN dissented.] This is one of the most important points on which dissatisfaction has been expressed. There is a list of those Church chaplains who are appointed on shore, and you ought to give them the same position and the same rank that you give to the clergyman of the Church of England. There is not a single Catholic clergyman a commissioned officer in the Navy ashore or afloat, and every fair person will see that impartial justice has not been done in this matter. We are told that there are few Wesleyans, Catholics, or Dissenters; and it comes to this, that the Church of England, as the Established Church, has every possible facility given to its members, and that no facility is given to the members of the other churches. That is simply the case, on the showing of the hon. Gentleman himself. I regret that he has not given a more satisfactory reply, and I feel sure that this matter will not be allowed to drop. It was the same in regard to the Army, and we had to keep pegging away about the Army until that inequality and injustice was completely done away with, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his Department will be troubled about this matter in the future.


I think the Civil Lord has stretched his duty almost to the utmost limit by the courteous manner in which he replied to the hon. Member. The hon. Member complains—and I will speak very frankly on this matter that the Admiralty do not give Roman Catholic chaplains to Her Majesty's Fleet. That is because Roman Catholics, in common with Wesleyans, Congregationalists, and other Nonconformist bodies, are Dissenters. In the Navy we are very  pleased to receive Irishmen, for we know that we are getting good fighting material; but if Irishmen insist that their priests should come with the men, then, we say, take your men away.


That is the whole thing now.


I say Roman Catholics are dissenters, and they have no i more claim to force their priests on board men-of-war than Wesleyans and other dissenting bodies have to force their pastors. If you want fair play, that is fair play. I can quite understand the aim and the game of the Irish Roman Catholic Members. Nothing will satisfy them except to get a priest on board every ship. But that will never come to pass as long as the Church of England is the Established Church of the land. Cardinal Logue said that there is a Protestant chaplain on board every ship in the Navy. That is not true. Protestant chaplains are only carried on board ships commanded by a post-captain. I do not know what you want, but I hope if this agitation is continued the Admiralty will withdraw the training ships from the Irish ports altogether. There is no room on board for two chaplains teaching different creeds and doctrines. We do not want to be questioned and catechised in that way; it would only breed dissension. Turning to the question of training, I disagree with the statement that there is no difference in the ordinary man and the man trained in a training vessel of masts and yards. The North German Lloyd is so impressed with the value of trained crews that they are fitting up special ships for that purpose. I do not challenge the policy of the Admiralty in dismantling the training squadron at the present time, although we fear it may be the beginning of a new policy. All I ask is that no hurried decision shall be arrived at for demolishing the training squadron. Now I pass away from that and come to. the question of the marines. I think it is grossly unfair, when marines are doing duty on shore at the front in South Africa, that they should be deprived of lodging allowance for their wives, whilst the soldiers' wives are granted separation money of 1s. per day.


With regard to the statement made a few moments ago by the Civil Lord, I should like to ask if it is not a fact that since the "Black Prince" has been stationed at Queenstown permanently the anticipations of the Admiralty have been realised, and the experiment proved perfectly successful.


There is at present no reason to consider the removal of the "Black Prince," as a very satisfactory class of boys is being obtained. If, in consequence of the advice of the hon. Gentleman and his friends, those boys cease to enter the Navy at Queenstown, then the "Black Prince" will have to be removed elsewhere, but I hope such a condition of affairs will never arise.


As the Irish boys have turned out quite satisfactory as naval recruits—


Hear, hear!


Will the hon. Gentleman consider the claim of the Catholic chaplain of Queenstown, whose duties have been considerably increased within the last few years, and whose allowance would be larger if calculated upon the old capitation basis. I do ask. the hon. Gentleman's favourable consideration as to this.

MR. POWER  Waterford, E.

There is no doubt great anxiety that a certain number of Irish boys should go into the service, but the Government is not disposed to consider the religious views of these boys. If the hon. Gentleman wants these boys to enter the service then he must respect their religious convictions. It is absolutely absurd to say "we want the boys, but we do not want their priests to intrude on the ship." That view is bigoted to a degree.


I do not represent a seaport constituency, and I am very glad of it on this occasion, because I should be sorry to see any constituents of mine go into the Navy to be treated in the way they evidently would be by officers like the hon. and gallant bigot who addressed us a while ago.


Order, order! That is not a proper expression to use.



I withdraw the expression "bigot." The difficulty of Irish Catholics in speaking here is that even gentlemen who ought to understand better than the hon. and gallant Gentleman never seem to learn anything in this House. We are sick of hearing your profession of a desire to treat everyone in religious matters on an equality. As soon as a Roman Catholic question arises the Government is dead against any concession being made. We are tired of listening to praise and flattery of the gallant Irish soldiers and sailors; if it is worth while having Irishmen with your flag you ought to give them the consolations of their religion. If these are not afforded them it will act as a deterrent to their entering the service. We all recognise the proper spirit in which the Civil Lord has approached the subject. Apparently he was not satisfied with his own statement. He only talked of it as the best that could be done for the present, and he almost gave me reason to think that if he and the Admiralty got the opportunity they would go further. Irishmen are largely taxed in cash as well as in blood, and we hold that if you take Irishmen into your Navy you should give them the same facilities for practising their religion as are given to others. We are told you make provision for the Catholic sailor when he goes ashore, but surely in that case he can easily go to any place of worship he likes. Then we are told there is no room on board ships for priests, but the room that is used for the exercise of one religion can be used for the exercise of another, just the same as is done in your gaols. To tell a young man going into the Navy that he is not to have proper religious attention is to tell him a very serious thing. The greatest terror you can put before an Irish Catholic is to tell him he will die without the priest. If a man is to be executed on the scaffold, he has the advantage of having the priest; but in the Navy he is not to have that advantage because it might cost you, perhaps, £100 a year per ship. That is not my view of the best way to induce Irishmen to enter the Navy. The criticisms passed upon Cardinal Logue are most absurd, and can only emanate from people who do not understand the duty of a bishop or a priest. The bishop is bound to tell his people not to go on board ship or anywhere else where they incur risk to their immortal souls. He would fail in his duty if he did not do it. Wherever Catholics go, they should look forward to having provision for receiving spiritual consolation when the hour of death arrives. It will be our duty, on every occasion that arises here, to keep this question pressed upon your attention until equality is dealt out to Roman Catholics in the Navy as well as elsewhere.

MR. JOHN WILSON  Falkirk Burghs

said he had listened with extreme regret to the speeches made by hon. Members from Ireland. No doubt it was very desirable that their countrymen should have the consolations of their religion, but the position they took up was an impracticable one. If they were going to have chaplains for Roman Catholics (as Irish Members insisted) on every warship, then Scotsmen would insist on having their Presbyterian chaplains. Presbyterians sent more men to the Navy than Irish Roman Catholics, and Wesleyans and Methodists sent ten times as many. It would be practically impossible to send chaplains belonging to all these different denominations, and hon. Members from Ireland must see the position they took up was illogical. They should, as in olden times, make the chaplains the church militant—they should make them fight as well as preach—because, if all denominations were to be represented, they would form a considerable proportion of the crew.


The Catholic priests have fought.


I am sorry the great Protestant religion is divided into so many segments. With regard to the Roman Catholic religion it is different—it is one and universal, there are no sections in it and they all believe the same thing. I believe the Admiralty object to appointing more Catholic chaplains. You have Protestant and Catholic chaplains in the force. Those Protestant chaplains are commissioned officers. I want to know whether the Admiralty will appoint the present Roman Catholic chaplains in the Navy to the same position as that held by Protestant chaplains; they ought certainly to be of equal status.

influence to obtain the realisation of this long-felt desire.


pointed out that inasmuch as Roman Catholics believed in confession, the presence of a minister was absolutely necessary. Some answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Clare was certainly required, as it was not right that a badge of inferiority should be put upon the Roman Catholic chaplains attached to the Fleet.


I cannot hold out any hope that the expectations or desires just expressed will be fulfilled. I have already explained to the Committee that the position of these Roman Catholic priests is altogether different from the position of the chaplains, though I cannot for one moment admit that in any sense a badge of inferiority attaches to them. The power which the Admiralty can exercise over them is altogether different in the case of these priests from the case of the chaplains serving afloat with the ships. Under these circumstances I cannot hold out any hope that their position will be altered.


The last few words of the hon. Gentleman make it almost necessary that we should take a division on this Vote. The hon. Gentleman told us in the plainest terms that the Admiralty will not grant to Catholic priests serving as chaplains to the forces of the Navy the same position and rank as that granted to ministers in the service of the Church of England. He says that no stigma of inferiority is cast upon the Catholic priests in this matter. I beg leave to differ from him. There is no reason whatever why the Catholic priest in the pay of and serving the Navy should be in the position of not being a commissioned officer, while Church of England ministers are commissioned officers. On the face of it, it is unjust and unfair. The hon. Gentleman says he does not see his way to increase the number of Roman Catholic priests in the Navy. I am sorry for that. If the Presbyterians do not seem particularly anxious about having more chaplains, that is no reason why we should not have more. We hold our own views, and we do not follow the example and precepts of any particular section of people in this matter. We are told that amongst the crews of the ships the Catholics are so few that it would be unreasonable to ask the Admiralty to ship Catholic chaplains for their special service. But if we cannot have more chaplains, it cannot be said that we are unreasonable in asking that the present Roman Catholic chaplains attached to the naval service should receive the same rank and have the same position as the ministers belonging to the Church of England. Should I be in order, Mr. Chairman, in moving a reduction under the sub-head at which we have now arrived?


That's all. Good and safe sailing and bon voyage