The Invergordon Mutiny -- 1931 World Naval Ships Forums Archive

Naval History by Country :

ROYAL
NAVY

US
NAVY

GERMAN
NAVY

FRENCH
NAVY

*VIEW ALL OF OUR CURRENT ART SPECIAL OFFERS ON ONE PAGE HERE*
NAVAL ART	AVIATION ART	MILITARY ART	SPORT ART

ALWAYS GREAT OFFERS :

20% FURTHER PRICE REDUCTIONS ON HUNDREDS OF LIMITED EDITION ART PRINTS

BUY ONE GET ONE HALF PRICE ON THOUSANDS OF PAINTINGS AND PRINTS

FOR MORE OFFERS SIGN UP TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

The Invergordon Mutiny -- 1931 World Naval Ships Forums Archive

The Invergordon Mutiny -- 1931

Posts 1 to 50

[B][B]The Royal Navy during the Inter War Years Depression[/B][/B] [B][B]By 1931 Britain, in common with the other major industrial nations, was in the grip of an economic crisis. The National government, a coalition led by Ramsay Macdonald, had to find ways of cutting expenditure and, among a number of unpopular measures, decided to reduce the pay of all military personnel.[/B][/B] The Royal Navy pay scales had already been reduced in 1925, for new recruits only. Now all would be forced on to the 1925 scales, even those who had joined up earlier. [B][B]The way the cuts were applied meant that ratings – the ordinary sailors – received a proportionately much greater cut than higher ranks, in some cases reducing their pay to a level where they felt they could not support their families. The pay of Admirals was to be reduced by 7%, Lieutenant Commanders by 3.7%, Chief Petty Officers by 11.8% and Able Seamen by 23%.[/B][/B] [B][B]News of the cuts broke on September 11th 1931, just as the Atlantic Fleet was gathering at Invergordon for manoeuvres. The cuts were to come into force from October 1st, long before the men could get home to speak to their families and sort out their affairs.[/B][/B] To add insult to injury, the news emerged haphazardly, some of it leaked through the press. This led to inaccurate and confusing rumours which only served to increase the men’s sense of grievance. Three days of mutiny On Sunday 13th September unusually large numbers of men went ashore. Discussion among small groups in the town throughout the day culminated in a mass meeting in the shore canteen in the evening. Several men made speeches and rousing songs were sung. [B][B]Able Seaman Len Wincott of HMS Norfolk called for a strike: “It’ll be passive resistance and no bloodshed”.[/B][/B] When the canteen closed[B][B] the men made their way peacefully back to their ships, which were Hood, Rodney, Warspite, Valiant, Malaya, Repulse, Dorsetshire, Norfolk, York and Adventure. Centurion, Shikari, [/B][/B]Snapdragon and Tetrarch arrived on Monday 14th and Exeter on Tuesday 15th. [B][B][B]HMS RODNEY On Monday 14th further meetings were held ashore in the canteen and sports ground. These were more disorderly than on the previous day and officers were alarmed to observe civilians among the men. Patrols were sent ashore from Hood and Valiant and the men returned to their ships, but this time remained on deck singing and making speeches until late into the night.[/B][/B][/B] On Tuesday 15th several ships were due to go out on exercises. Repulse sailed as planned, but the other ships were unable to follow as the men refused to carry out the necessary duties. The exercise was cancelled, Repulse returned, and all further shore leave was stopped. For the rest of the day the men on most of the ships carried out minimum duties only and remained on deck cheering and singing.[B][B] Rear Admiral Wilfred Tomkinson, who was temporarily in charge of the fleet, sympathised with the men’s position and from the outset had put their case to the Admiralty, stating that he thought discipline would deteriorate further unless the men’s complaints were answered. The response was that “Their Lordships confidently expected that the men would uphold the traditions of the Service by loyally carrying out their duties” and an instruction to continue with the planned exercises.[/B][/B] Tomkinson replied that this was impossible and on Tuesday afternoon sent his Chief of Staff down to London by train to fully explain the situation and try to elicit a more reasonable response from the Admiralty. [B][B]By the morning of Wednesday 16th the level of protest had increased, with no work at all being done on several ships. Tomkinson sent an urgent telegram to the Admiralty saying that the situation would get completely out of control unless concessions were made and putting forward detailed proposals for the men’s pay. By this time the matter was under discussion at cabinet level. The government was nervous about the possible spread of social unrest to other groups. The situation continued to deteriorate as the day wore on. Threats of interference with machinery had been made, and Tomkinson was concerned that men would start to move between the ships spreading disaffection. He contacted the Admiralty again, and this time received a swift response that the ships were to disperse and return to their home ports. It was not certain whether all the ships would be able to sail, but by just after midnight all had left the Cromarty Firth. Within a few days the Admiralty announced that the pay cuts would be restricted to a maximum of 10%[/B][/B]. [B][B]The unrest at Invergordon and its possible implications caused financial panic. Foreign investors rushed to exchange their sterling for gold. On Thursday 17th, in an attempt to quell the unease, the Prime Minister announced that there would be no victimisation of those involved in the mutiny, but this had little effect: by the next day £18 million pounds worth of gold had been withdrawn. On Sunday September 20th the government announced that to prevent further withdrawals it was suspending the gold standard and an act of parliament was rushed through the next day. The pound no longer had a fixed value in gold and was allowed to find its own level. It immediately fell by 30% from $4.86 to $3.40. This was the start of a new era of currency management.[/B][/B] [B][B]THE AFTERMATH In the aftermath of the mutiny a considerable number of men were discharged from the Navy, from within the Atlantic Fleet and elsewhere, and the careers of several of the senior officers involved were affected. Rear Admiral Tomkinson in particular was the Admiralty’s scapegoat: they claimed that he could have prevented the situation by taking firm action at the outset. [/B][/B]The records show that in fact he handled a volatile situation carefully and did his best to mediate between the men and the Admiralty. There was no serious damage or violence and in the end the fleet dispersed without trouble. What might have been the outcome if the Admiralty’s more hard-line suggestions – including shelling the fleet from the hills around the firth – had been acted upon? [B][B][B]HMS VALIANT Able Seaman Leonard Wincott was serving on HMS Norfolk at the time of the mutiny. He became one of the men’s leaders and was the author of their manifesto, which stated that they would refuse to serve under the new rate of pay unless they received a written guarantee that their pay would be revised. Of his involvement, he said: “Had I not made the first move someone else would have done so. The men wanted a speaker who would express their resentment at the cuts. What I emphasised was the need to strike”. Despite the Prime Minister’s statement that there would be no victimisation following the mutiny, Wincott and other leading participants were discharged from the Navy on November 3rd 1931, immediately after the General Election.[/B][/B][/B] [B][B]Wincott was born in Leicester in 1907 and joined the Royal Navy in 1920. He was said to be a clever man who could speak nine languages. After his discharge from the Navy he became a workers’ hero in Britain and it is thought that this is when his involvement with the Communist Party started. He was unable to find work and by the mid 1930s had left the country to fight against General Franco in Spain. By 1938 he was living in Leningrad and later became a Soviet citizen.[/B][/B] During World War 2 he lived through the siege of Leningrad and received a medal for his part in the city’s defence. In 1946 he fell out of favour with the authorities and was sent to a Siberian labour camp for agitation against the Soviet state. Ten years later the new Soviet leader Kruschev came to Britain and during his visit was petitioned by family and friends seeking Wincott’s release. Wincott was set free in 1957 and apart from a few brief visits to Britain spent the rest of his life in Moscow, where he died in 1983. [B][B]At his own request Wincott’s ashes were committed to the sea in Plymouth Sound. The arrangements for this were made by friends from the Navy with whom he had remained in contact. The Navy provided a fleet auxiliary vessel flying the white ensign at half mast, and Wincott’s Russian widow was present[/B][/B]. Was this was a fitting end for a man who almost accidentally had played an important part in 20th century naval history and been severely punished for it. His widow said at the ceremony ??: “In the depths of his soul my husband was an Englishman who remained proud to have served in the Royal Navy”. Comments are invited on the above-I believe there is much to comment on!!! jainso31

By far the most serious blunder was that the Admiralty brigade were no longer in touch with their men. The British class system expected the Nelson response from their men .. do your duty..but Nelson was a hero men were keen to follow. those in Admiralty were just deskbound aristocrats. A complete shambles which could and should have been handled better and a lot earlier. Brian

Am I correct in saying that the Divisional System was devised as a result of this, so that personnel could air a grievance? Alan.

In the words of Christopher Bell regarding Invergordon: "The picture of a navy bitterly divided along class lines has little basis in reality."

[B][SIZE=3]The bloodless mutiny that shook nation[/SIZE][/B]. [B]Saturday, September 17, 2011[/B] [B]Plymouth Herald[/B] BRITAIN is in a financial crisis. The coalition Government announces cuts to the military as public spending is slashed. The parallel with today is uncanny – but 80 years ago the response wasn't limited to mutterings about strikes by trades unions. Instead there was anger by men in uniform. And there was action – mutiny. Plymouth sailors were at the centre of one of the most notorious episodes in Royal Navy history. The Invergordon Mutiny lasted two short days in September 1931 and there were no ships sunk, no shots fired, not a single person hurt. But the rebellion led to panic on the London Stock Exchange, a run on the Pound and a radical and permanent change in the UK's monetary system. There was a fear that this could be the start of the kind of social and political earthquake that created the Soviet Union – the 1917 Russian communist revolution had roots in a naval rebellion. The incident was so far-reaching and the subject so sensitive that, decades later, there were questions raised in the House of Commons when a Plymouth journalist followed up the story. [B]The main people involved in the Invergordon Mutiny are long dead. The voice of one of them lives on, though, [U]thanks to the meticulous work of former BBC South West man Joe Pengelly[/U][/B]. He was the journalist who found himself in a political storm and the subject of close attention by MI5 when he interviewed and then befriended one of the Invergordon rebels, Len Wincott. Ex-able seaman Wincott's voice sounds deep, steady and full of resolve as he explains why he led the revolt that shook Britain. "Before the strike there was no thought in my mind of going against discipline and authority," says Wincott. "I was a very good sailor, I was a very well disciplined young man and I liked the Navy very much. "In fact I decided that the Navy would be my career but I have always in my life had a desire to move against any form of injustice." Hearing the voice you understand how a simple lowly sailor could have the determination to take on the hierarchy of the Royal Navy and why others like him were prepared to break the most basic rule of military discipline and defy officers' orders. On the tape recording – made by Joe – Wincott's voice is coloured by controlled anger. His arguments carry an infectious power that helped inspire up to 1,000 others to follow him. The injustice Wincott refers to was a savage cut in wages. The Government in September 1931 cut Royal Navy spending by ten per cent and that translated into the same figure being lopped off pay. All public sector workers faced the that percentage loss in earnings. But in the Royal Navy, in reality the lower decks fared far worse than the officers. Many ordinary sailors faced a 25-per-cent cut in already meagre wages. [B]Before 1931, his navy records show that Wincott, 24 at the time, was a model sailor. The pay cut changed him overnight[/B]. There was little sign of the trouble to come when some of the most powerful ships of the Atlantic fleet left Devonport on September 7. Wincott was on the heavy cruiser HMS Norfolk, which sailed with battleship Rodney, cruiser Adventure and the flagship, battlecruiser Hood. As the ships arrived at Invergordon, on the Cromarty Firth in Scotland on September 11, the sailors read front-page newspaper reports about the impending cuts. By the time the Admiralty announced the cuts and tried to explain the reasons for them, there was agitation across several ships, including the Rodney, and on the Norfolk, where Wincott organised protest meetings. There was similar disruption on several other ships with the men carrying out only routine duties that permitted life on board to go on, but refusing to let the vessels sail for manoeuvres and ignoring officers' orders. Wincott told Joe later how there was 'no animosity' towards officers, and certainly no violence or destruction – as was claimed later in some reports. [B][COLOR=black]As Wincott led the Norfolk mutiny, the officers found they had to go through him to try to bring the crew round.[/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][B]He dictated a manifesto of the rebels' demands – which was written out by a Plymouth sailor, able seaman George Hill[/B].[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]"Wincott said that naval wives would be driven to prostitution to feed their families," said Joe. "But George toned it down, writing that wives would have to turn to domestic service to keep the wolf from the door.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]"George was more careful, more cautious than Wincott. He played both sides."[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]The manifesto had a flowery, flowing archaic style which led some observers to observe later that Wincott, with his basic education, could not have written the document. Therefore it was claimed that others led the rebellion, possibly from outside the Navy.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]But Wincott insisted later that the manifesto was all his own work. "The words came pouring out," he said.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Meanwhile, the acting commander of the fleet, Rear-Admiral Wilfred Tomkinson – another Devonport based man – was trying to assess the situation, figure out how to restore order and keep the Admiralty informed.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]He told his superiors that he could not get the fleet to sea and that the wages cut appeared to be the issue.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]And to the ships he signalled that he was aware of hardship among crews and their families and commanding officers were to report typical cases.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]But as the mutiny hardened – complete with a piano being brought on the deck and rousing singing of socialist anthem the Red Flag – Tomkinson was powerless. Even some Royal Marines, charged with helping keep order on board if ever there were trouble, refused orders.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]After two days of mutiny, Tomkinson put the men's case to the Admiralty, warning the top brass that the rebellions would worse unless concessions were made.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]He suggested that the worse parts of the cuts to the junior ranks be reversed. The men were informed that they would have to wait for a decision – which Tomkinson learned from the Admiralty would be taken by the cabinet.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Tomkinson's approach defused the situation. On the night of September 16, the Admiralty instructed that all ships should return to their home ports and the men at last obeyed their officers. The rebellious Plymouth ships returned peacefully to Devonport.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Tomkinson's recommendations on the pay cuts were accepted by the Cabinet.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]The Rear-Admiral, though, carried the can. He was blamed for failing to punish the rebels as soon as the protests started.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Feelings were running high. During the mutiny, one Labour MP had argued that the rebel ships should be shelled and the mutineers executed.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]The Invergordon Mutiny caused a panic on the London Stock Exchange and a run on the pound, amid fears that this was a red revolution. A quarter of the currency's value against the US dollar was wiped out.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]That financial crisis brought Britain's economic troubles to a head, forcing the pound off the gold standard.The historic link backing paper money in circulation with reserves of gold in the Bank of England ended on September 20, 1931.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black][B]Back in Devonport, 36 mutineers were taken from the ships[/B].[/COLOR] [B][COLOR=black]They were supposedly being given special training – instead they faced 'vicious' exercises, Wincott recalled.[/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=black]So Wincott led a further protest to a senior commander and the regime eased.[/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=black]But then Wincott and others regarded as leading trouble makers were told their services were no longer required in the Navy. They got their remaining pay, money for a civilian suit and a railway ticket to their chosen destination.[/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][B]"I think England would have been turned upside down if there'd been an open court martial," he later told Joe[/B].[/COLOR] [COLOR=black][B]George Hill, who had been careful to remain in the middle, stayed in the Navy and later became a policeman in Plymouth[/B].[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Rear-Admiral Tomkinson was placed on half pay following mutiny 1932 and retired 1935, although he rejoined the Navy to serve in World War Two.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Wincott became a communist and a feted anti-war protestor. He defected to the Soviet Union – the communist 'empire' dominated by Russia – in 1934.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]He served in the Red Army, allied with Britain against Germany in World War Two, and was caught up in one of the most vicious episodes of the conflict, the 900-day siege of Leningrad.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Before the war Wincott was a hero in the Soviet union, a symbol of the British working class against their 'oppressors'. He even enjoyed roles in films, playing Britons.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]But in 1946 he was accused of being a British spy and after a show trial he was sent to a labour camp.[/COLOR] During his 11-year spell in the brutal work prisons he met and married Lena, a fellow inmate. He was released, rehabilitated and living in Moscow when Joe entered the saga in 1973. By now, the Soviet Union was Britain's enemy. This was the height of the Cold War, the stand-off between the 'free' West and the communist East. When word leaked out that Joe was going to Moscow to interview the Invergordon mutineer his BBC bosses faced pressure and there were questions raised in Parliament as to why licence payers' money was being used to give publicity to a 'traitor'. In fact Joe was heading to Moscow more as an historian than a reporter and he was travelling on his own time. Joe always regarded himself as a historian first – he graduated from Jesus College, Oxford – and journalist second, specialising in the oral record. His achievements including lecturing to the Library of Congress in Washington DC. "Not a penny of the licence fee went on that trip," says Joe, now 87. Moscow was a family holiday for Joe and his wife. "I always used to drag Barbara to somewhere where I could also do a story." On arrival in the Russian capital Joe first had to find Wincott. "I phoned the British embassy on the off chance and they said, 'Oh, yes Len's a friend. We always have him round for drinks on the Queen's birthday'." Joe set up the meeting and Wincott talked freely. But at the end of their conversation he demanded that he have the tape to listen over before releasing the record three months later. The two became friends and Lena and Len visited Joe and Barbara twice at their Thorn Park, Mannamead, home in the late 1970s and in 1981. The ghosts of the Invergordon past still haunted Wincott and those who came into contact with him. "I took him to a Combined Services rugby match, Devonport against Portsmouth," says Joe. "The top naval officers there spent most of their time watching Len, not the game. These were men with distinguished war records – but here was an ordinary seaman who was more famous than them. "I know that my phone at home was tapped and my bosses at the BBC were contacted by MI5 to get me to tell Len that if he wished to stay in the UK he could. That was when I really began to quake. It was all done verbally." Len did return for good in 1983 – the year he died. Lena brought his ashes and she and the urn stayed with Joe and Barbara. Although Len was not born in Plymouth – he was from Leicester – he regarded the Devon city as his home. "Len wanted his ashes scattered in Plymouth Sound," says Joe. I approached the Navy to see if they would help and to my surprise they did." The former mutineer's ashes were kept in the chapel at Devonport Naval Base and a Navy vessel was laid on for the service and scattering at sea. "There were quite happy to do all that, but they did not want to have a lot of publicity." That was a fitting end for the bloodless Invergordon Mutiny and its aftermath which was, Joe observes, 'a very British affair'. [CENTER]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/CENTER] source [URL="http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/bloodless-mutiny-shook-nation/story-13350198-detail/story.html"]thisisdevon.co.uk[/URL] Little h

[QUOTE=Harley;10058895]In the words of Christopher Bell regarding Invergordon: "The picture of a navy bitterly divided along class lines has little basis in reality."[/QUOTE] Another academic...............Sorry; Navy book reader!..;)

My thanks to Old Salt,Nabera,Harley.ap1 and lastly, but by no means least Harry, who through the eyes of another,Joe Pengelly-gave the story another slant. I am not at all sure that I wholly understand Harley's comment that "the navy bitterly divided along class lines has little basis in reality"-I do hope he will return and enlarge upon this remark. TO CONTINUE Once the ships were back in their home ports,[B][B] the Admiralty (as in the case of Spithead in the past) broke its promises of no victimisation.[/B][/B] They singled out over thirty of the leading militants, ordering them off ship and sending them to be interrogated in barracks. Following the election of the National government in November,[B][B] these militants, along with some hundred other sailors, were summarily discharged from the Navy.[/B][/B] The split in the Labour Party, headed by MacDonald (who formed the National government in alliance with the Tories) and the lack of a viable alternative leadership prepared to fight on clear class policies, left the labour movement momentarily rudderless. [B][B]In the face of mass unemployment, it would be several years before the working class began to reassert itself.[/B][/B] [B][B]The militants, radicalised by their experience, went on to join the Communist Party, which for many workers stood as the symbol of resistance against capitalism. However, this too was a false dawn, as the British Communist Party, along with others internationally, was in the firm grip of Stalinist policies, which through a succession of policy twists and turns would lead to the rise of Nazis in Germany and the defeat of the Spanish Revolution. And eventually to World War.[/B][/B] [B][B]The sailors of the Royal Navy, along with other members of the working class, suffered hardships throughout the 1930s: a consequence of the continuation of capitalism and the need for successful militant struggle.[/B][/B] jainso31

[QUOTE=NABERA;10058892]Am I correct in saying that the Divisional System was devised as a result of this, so that personnel could air a grievance? Alan.[/QUOTE] The Divisional System was devised prior to 1800.

[QUOTE=patroclus;10058951]The Divisional System was devised prior to 1800.[/QUOTE] Thanks for that Patroclus. My comment was based on a distant memory of when I joined the RN (1964) when, during introductory lectures, the "divisional system" was being described to us, and for some reason I seemed to recall this being connected with the Invergordon mutiny. My distant memory is however, by no means infallible! Alan.

[QUOTE=jainso31;10058950] Once the ships were back in their home ports,[B][B] the Admiralty (as in the case of Spithead in the past) broke its promises of no victimisation[/QUOTE] Could you expand on the Spithead example? I was under the impression that the Admiralty kept its promises at the time of the Spithead mutiny and that nobody was punished.

[QUOTE=NABERA;10058954]Thanks for that Patroclus. My comment was based on a distant memory of when I joined the RN (1964) when, during introductory lectures, the "divisional system" was being described to us, and for some reason I seemed to recall this being connected with the Invergordon mutiny. My distant memory is however, by no means infallible! Alan.[/QUOTE] I think that Invergordon brought everyone up with a round turn and, thereafter, more attention was given to improving the way in which the Divisional System worked. Although people like Lord Fisher appreciated that technological change and the concomitant higher level of education on the lower deck had to be accompanied by a change in attitudes, this did not happen overnight.

patroclus it would certainly appear that I have misled re.Spithead and the treatment of the mutineers thereafter. [B][B][B]In April 1797, 16 ships-of-the-line of the Channel fleet refused to sail, and mounted a collective mutiny at Spithead. [/B][/B][/B]Their demands were concerned with improved pay and conditions, and better treatment in general. Some officers considered to ill treat their crews were sent ashore, and their permanent removal demanded. [B][B]The mutiny at Spithead was conducted in a peaceful and organised manner and within a few weeks their demands had been met and a Royal Pardon granted.[/B][/B] [B][B]The mutiny at the Nore in May 1797 was potentially more serious, as the mutineers attempted to go beyond the demands made at Spithead.[/B][/B] They wanted more shore leave, fairer distribution of prize money, and changes to the Articles of War. When they attempted to blockade the Thames, an important trade route to London, it took a much more serious turn. [B][B]The Admiralty, which must have felt it had been too lenient and generous with the Spithead mutineers, was determined not to accede to any more demands. When the government demanded the suppression of the mutiny and the Prime Minister, William Pitt the Younger, brought in a bill to outlaw the mutineers, disagreements amongst them rose to the fore. Finally, the Nore mutiny fell apart and the mutineers paid the price. The leader of the delegates was court-martialled and hanged from the yardarm of HMS Sandwich, followed by a number of his fellow mutineers, and many "others" were imprisoned or flogged.[/B][/B] Whether this latter course of action included ringleaders of the Spithead Mutiny-I have yet to ascertain. jainso31

[QUOTE=ap1;10058902]Another academic...............Sorry; Navy book reader!..;)[/QUOTE] Some academics do actually base what they write on fact sometimes. My quoting of Bell was in response to Old Salt's rather foolish characterisation that "those in Admiralty were just deskbound aristocrats." I would like to hear him explain that one. As to Tomkinson, if he'd prevented the assemblies on the 14th things may well have been different. With relation to the Admiralty breaking promises, were the Articles of War still being regularly read out?

[QUOTE=jainso31;10058961] Whether this latter course of action included ringleaders of the Spithead Mutiny-I have yet to ascertain. jainso31[/QUOTE] It did not. Spithead and the Nore were very different affairs. I note that in #7 you state that "Once the ships were back in their home ports, the Admiralty (as in the case of Spithead in the past) broke its promises of no victimisation. They singled out over thirty of the leading militants, ordering them off ship and sending them to be interrogated in barracks. Following the election of the National government in November, these militants, along with some hundred other sailors, were summarily discharged from the Navy'. As far as I am aware only twenty-four men were penalised and discharged from the Navy "services no longer required". The Admiralty had promised only that no disciplinary action would be taken and, technically, this promise was kept. The twenty-four discharged were involved in subversive activities at Devonport after Invergordon. I have no doubt but that some others would have been given an uncomfortable time and possibly not been allowed to re-engage for pension requirements.

I must accept what you say patroclus (Hansard reports 24 as being dismissed the service) but was a bit surprised to learn the undermentioned aftermath relating to delays and that a second mutiny broke out,wherein several mutineers were killed!!! They also protested about the presence on board of so many pressed men, not only the total landlubbers but those criminal elements who were having a disruptive effect. [B][B]The Admiralty agreed to deal with most of their demands and an official royal pardon was issued on the 23 April 1797. The first Spithead Mutiny was over. Unfortunately the measures promised required the authority of Parliament. Action was slow in coming and the men began to feel that they had been duped. On 7 May the mutiny broke out again and the tension was greatly exacerbated when Admiral Colpoys ordered the officers of his flagship 'London' to fire on the mutineers, several of whom were killed. [/B][/B]It was only by great efforts on the part of the delegates that the men on board were restrained from hanging the admiral. Colpoys and over 100 officers were put ashore but the rest remained aboard although the delegates once more took effective command of the fleet. Two days later the relevant legislation was passed by Parliament and Admiral Lord Howe came down to Spithead to assure the delegates that their demands were being implemented. They responded by demanding that about fifty particularly unpopular officers should be replaced and Howe on his own authority wisely conceded this point. On 15 May the second Spithead mutiny was over and two days later the fleet set sail for further blockading duty off the French coast. [url]http://www.socialist.net/the-naval-mutinies-at-spithead-and-the-nore.htm[/url] jainso31

Re Spithead. Yes, the crew of the LONDON took umbrage at some inept behavior by Colpoys and several men were killed on both sides but the Delegates stopped the fracas. There were also disturbances on board the DUKE and incipient mutinies at Yarmouth and Plymouth and many officers were put on shore. All of this happened while the Bill to increase pay was making its way through Parliament. I would not have described these disturbances as a “second” Spithead mutiny – rather a continuation of the first.:D But this had nothing to do with the Admiralty’s promise not to take disciplinary action. They did not. The Royal Pardon was duly issued.

My father was always reluctant to talk about the Invergordon Mutiny but I see from his service record that he was actually on HMS Nightingale, based at Vernon; he did mention the problem of the lower deck's greater proportion of cuts. He was in transit from Warspite via barracks to Vernon and Nightingale, so was probably too caught up with that to get involved in the dispute. Edna

patroclus-this all came about because of the statement in #7-all I am trying to do is find a reason for such a statement; and would gently point out that perceived tardiness by the ruling authority could give rise to the perception that the Admiralty had gone back on it's word and yes for Spithead read Nore; but one cannot say the two incidents were perpetrated in complete isolation. At this juncture -I rest my case. jainso31

My thanks for your contribution Edna-I feel sure that your father was far removed from this incident-at the time being mindful of other matters. jainso31

[B][SIZE=3]recording[/SIZE][/B] [B][I]Catalogue number [/I][/B]5810 [B][I]Subject period [/I][/B]Interwar [B][I]Production date [/I][/B]1980 [B][I]Alternative Names [/I][/B]object category: recording [B][I]Creator[/I][/B] Ereira, Alan (Production company) Ley, Richard Percival (interviewee/speaker) [B][I]Category[/I][/B] sound [B]Object description[/B] British NCO served with Royal Marines aboard HMS Adventure during Invergordon mutiny, 1931. [B]Content description[/B] REEL 1 [B]Recollections of period as Royal Marine NCO aboard HMS Adventure during Invergordon mutiny, 1931[/B]: service with Royal Marines, their relationship with lower deck and situation aboard HMS Adventure; unrest following news of pay cuts whilst at Invergordon, 12-14/9/1931; meetings at Invergordon canteen; plans for mutiny; events of mutiny, 15-16/9/1931 including communication between ships; Astley-Rushton's ineffective appeal during visit; [B][COLOR=black]efforts to raise anchor nearly precipitating clash between lower deck and marines[/COLOR][/B]; question of ringleaders; reluctant acceptance of home ports order (Devonport), 16/9/1931; tense situation following mutiny; opinions of various aspects of mutiny. [B][I]Associated people and organisations[/I][/B] Astley-Rushton, E A Ley, Richard Percival Royal Navy, Ship, Adventure [B]source[/B] IWM website [CENTER]-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/CENTER] I imagine that it would be interesting to listen to the recording itemised above. Little h

[quote=jainso31;10058860][b] [b][B][B]At his own request Wincott’s ashes were committed to the sea in Plymouth Sound. The arrangements for this were made by friends from the Navy with whom he had remained in contact. The Navy provided a fleet auxiliary vessel flying the white ensign at half mast, and Wincott’s Russian widow was present[/B][/B]. Was this was a fitting end for a man who almost accidentally had played an important part in 20th century naval history and been severely punished for it. His widow said at the ceremony ??: “In the depths of his soul my husband was an Englishman who remained proud to have served in the Royal Navy”. Comments are invited on the above-I believe there is much to comment on!!! jainso31[/quote] [COLOR=black]In My Opinion, giving this mutinous commie agitator/scum a naval funeral is totally wrong. The man was a criminal and a disgrace to his uniform and therefore unworthy of that honor.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]That said, great article jainso31. I must learn more about it.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Not quite up to the Spithead and Nore mutinies of 1797, (now those sailors knew how to do it) but still quite interesting. [/COLOR] [COLOR=black]During the 1930's depression, the US Armed forces also had to live with[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]pay cuts of 15%. No mutinies by the active duty Army or Navy and the quality of those enlisted went up substantially due to lack of civilian opportunities.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]These very bright sailors were senior PO's by 1941 and many became[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]"Mustang" Officers who were extremly valuable to the rapidly expanding[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Wartime USN. Some actually rose to command ships, some with distinction, although most were far too valuable in technical and training roles.[/COLOR]

Thank you for your somewhat ascerbic comment OSCSSW-it is however pleasing to be appreciated.I have to say though, that the topic of MUTINY in the ROYAL NAVY- I posted with some trepidation-as it is not a particularly savoury subject for long serving RN members-however the truth will always come out eventually. PS SNAP to Harry -you beat me to it.Post 20 jainso31

[QUOTE=Harley;10058964]Some academics do actually base what they write on fact sometimes. My quoting of Bell was in response to Old Salt's rather foolish characterisation that "those in Admiralty were just deskbound aristocrats." I would like to hear him explain that one. As to Tomkinson, if he'd prevented the assemblies on the 14th things may well have been different. With relation to the Admiralty breaking promises, were the Articles of War still being regularly read out?[/QUOTE] The even-handed paycuts:- Admiral, 7 per cent; Lieut. Commdr., 3.7 per cent; Chief Petty Officer, 11.8 per cent; and Able Seaman, 23 per cent.

I'm sure you have a point, TCC: What is it? EDIT: It might interest you to know that prior to 1919 Admirals hadn't had a pay rise for at least 60 years. In the same period the pay of an Able Seaman had doubled (and that's to the 1925 rate, not the 1919 rate).

QUOTE CHRISTOPHER BELL [B][B]"For two days in the autumn of 1931, the Royal Navy’s Atlantic Fleet, anchored in the Cromarty Firth near Invergordon, was in a state of open mutiny.[/B][/B] Four of the fleet’s capital ships were unable to leave harbor for exercises on the morning of 15 September. On some ships men actively interfered with preparations for sailing; on others, ratings simply refused to fall in for duty. Most regarded this action as little more than a ‘down tools’ industrial strike. It was hoped that by refusing duty, the government would be compelled to ameliorate the pay cuts about to be imposed on the lower deck. The use of violence was never seriously considered. [B][B]On the contrary, the fleet’s chief of staff reported that ‘the attitude of the men to their Officers has been, if anything, more respectful than usual. [/B][/B] [B][B]1 Ratings were not angry at their immediate superiors, but rather the Admiralty and the government. [/B][/B]When concessions on pay were granted, discipline was quickly restored. The British public was no less shocked by this dramatic event than was the navy itself. Mutiny had fallen, one senior officer noted, ‘like a thunderbolt’. [B][B]2 Explanations for the breakdown of discipline in the Atlantic Fleet have traditionally focused on the Admiralty’s mishandling of the proposed pay reductions. [/B][/B]For most historians, the inter-war navy was an essentially sound institution temporarily crippled by weak leadership at the highest level. [B][B]3 Recently, however, attention has shifted toward systemic problems such as class antagonism and the lack of any effective means for the collective representation of lower-deck grievances. [/B][/B] 4 This has led to a better understanding of the underlying tensions within the service in 1931,[B][B][B] but has also produced exaggerated claims that the Invergordon mutiny was, in Alan Ereira’s words, ‘born out of social tensions which were threatening to erupt into class warfare’".[/B][/B][/B] jainso31

[QUOTE=OSCSSW;10059005][COLOR="Blue"]In My Opinion, giving this [B]mutinous commie agitator/scum [/B]a naval funeral is totally wrong. The man was a criminal and a disgrace to his uniform and therefore unworthy of that honor. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] It was a strike. It was the servicemans verson of 'industrial unrest'. They didn't hang the officers and take the ship, they just refused work. A 'disgraceful crimminal'?

[QUOTE]It was a strike. It was the servicemans verson of 'industrial unrest'. They didn't hang the officers and take the ship, they just refused work.[/QUOTE] The sailors involved might have deluded themselves into thinking it was just a strike, but it was mutiny, pure and simple. A conspiracy to refuse lawful orders en masse. It doesn't matter if they didn't hang anyone or take over: the Articles of War conveniently provided for mutiny accompanied with violence and mutiny without. The penalties were only marginally less draconian - only the ringleaders faced death under the latter crime.

[QUOTE=Harley;10059048]The sailors involved might have deluded themselves into thinking it was just a strike, but it was mutiny, pure and simple. A conspiracy to refuse lawful orders en masse. It doesn't matter if they didn't hang anyone or take over: the Articles of War conveniently provided for mutiny accompanied with violence and mutiny without. The penalties were only marginally less draconian - only the ringleaders faced death under the latter crime.[/QUOTE] Of course it was a Mutiny; however, if the ringleader(s) hadn't the popular support for what they believed was a gross injustice, then those sailors at the mass meeting(s) ashore, would have ignored the call for the acts of disobedience. One or more of those at the meeting(s), could have gone back on board and 'dobbed-in' the instigators who were calling for action which amounted to disobeying orders .... but they didn't ... so clearly there was a sufficient bad feeling about the reduction in sailors' wages that something, somewhere was going to blow - and it did. Little h

[QUOTE=Harley;10058895]In the words of Christopher Bell regarding Invergordon: "The picture of a navy bitterly divided along class lines has little basis in reality."[/QUOTE] Who was Christopher Bell and what are his qualifications please ? Thanks Brian

[B][SIZE="3"]Fred Copeman OBE[/SIZE][/B] Fred Copeman was born in Wangford Union Workhouse in Suffolk, in 1907. His mother and his brother George were also in the workhouse. At the age of nine Copeman was employed on the workhouse farm but eventually he was transferred to a children's home in Beccles. When Copeman was 14 years old he joined the Navy. Over the next few years he served on the Ganges before moving to the battleship Valiant, where he became the captain's runner. This was followed by service on the ships Stuart, Emperor of India and the Royal Oak. In September 1931 the National Government led by Ramsay MacDonald announced a reduction in pay for sailors serving in the Royal Navy. The actual reductions were Admiral (7 per cent), Lieutenant Commander (3.7 per cent), Chief Petty Officer (11.8 per cent) and Able Seaman (23 per cent). [B]Copeman thought this was unfair and helped organize what became known as the Invergordon Mutiny. Copeman was a member of the strike committee that persuaded the sailors on 15 ships of the Atlantic Fleet not to obey orders until the pay cuts were reviewed. The strike lasted for two days and was called off when the wage cuts were withdrawn. As a leader of the revolt, Copeman was victimized, and was forced to leave the Royal Navy.[/B] ......................(continues) (3) Speech made by Fred Copeman at a meeting of sailors in September 1931. So long as we are agreed that the cuts in their present form are unjust, there remains the problem of what to do about it. It seems to me that it's time we expressed our opinions in a more organised way, and I propose that you return to your ships and see that the Port Watch act with us. It will be foolish for us to do anything here without the other half of the men knowing what it is all about. Sleeping in the canteen is daft, and to try to march down to Glasgow is even madder. We are sailors, not soldiers, and our strength is in the Fleet itself. Whatever we do, everybody must be in it. There must be no question of splitting one section from another. The Marines must enter this fight with us at the beginning. (4) Statement issued by the Invergordon strike committee in September 1931. The loyal subjects of His Majesty the King, do hereby present to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty our earnest representations to them to revise the drastic cuts in pay that have been inflicted upon the lowest paid men of the lower deck. It is evident to all concerned that these cuts are the forerunner of tragedy, poverty, and immorality amongst the families of the men of the lower deck. The men are quite willing to accept a cut, which they, the men, think within reason, and unless this is done, we must remain as one unit refusing to serve under the new rates of pay ...................(continues) [B]source[/B] of the above excerpts [URL="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPcopeman.htm"]here[/URL] [CENTER]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/CENTER] [B][U]There follows [/U][/B]several [B]excerpts from wiki[/B], which read:- [B]Fred Copeman OBE (1907–1983)[/B] was an English volunteer in the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War, commanding the British Battalion. He is also notable for organising London's air raid defences during the Second World War, an achievement which earned him the OBE. ........................(continues) Training The focus of care at the time was to make boys swiftly self-sufficient and so, aged 12, Copeman was sent to Watts Naval School at North Elmham, Norfolk, to prepare for a life at sea. After two years, he was duly enlisted in the Royal Navy and was sent to HMS Ganges, an onshore naval training base near Shotley in Suffolk. HMS Ganges had a mixed reputation in the Royal Navy, both for its reputed harsh methods of training boys in order to turn out professionally able, self-reliant ratings and for the professionalism of its former trainees. From HMS Ganges, Copeman was sent to the Mediterranean Fleet, which was based in Malta. The poverty of the Maltese had a profound impression on him. It was here that he learned to box, earning money as a heavyweight prizefighter. [B][COLOR="Red"]He also narrowly missed the chance to become an officer[/COLOR][/B], spending three weeks in Malta's Corradina prison for "a practical joke"[3] that went wrong. Copeman - then a 24-year-old able seaman serving on the HMS Norfolk - succinctly describes the causes of the mutiny: [I]It came... as a complete surprise when newspapers were read throughout the ships, indicating that in most cases the lower ranks would lose more than the senior ranks. The actual [pay] reductions were: - Admiral, 7 per cent; Lieut. Commdr., 3.7 per cent; Chief Petty Officer, 11.8 per cent; and Able Seaman, 23 per cent.[[/I]4] The mutiny lasted two days (15–16 September 1931). Copeman, with another able seaman - Len Wincott - became a member of the Norfolk's strike committee. Although the mutiny was entirely peaceful, the Royal Navy imprisoned dozens of the ringleaders and dismissed hundreds more, Copeman among them.[5] In Crusade in Spain, Jason Gurney notes that Copeman was not charged, suggesting that his role must have been far more minor than the leader he presented himself to have been.[6] Alan Ereira says that Copeman was one of the eight ringleaders "hustled outside the dockyard gates with 13 s[hillings][7] and a railway warrant"[8] According to Ereira, "Some of the men were seen crying outside the dockyard at Devonport. They were reduced to beggary."[8] Copeman himself reflected on the event later: [I][The mutiny] was a turning point ... I began to understand the meaning of leadership and - even more important - the meaning of politics. Although the mutiny was not, in the minds of those who took part in it, political, I could not fail to be affected politically by it. The Communist Party had not neglected to notice those who taken any leading part at Invergordon. Wincott immediately started work in the International Labour Defence, an organisation in the control of the Communist Party. Some months later, I myself linked up with it and both of us finally joined the Party itself. Most politicians are egoists and I more than most. At Invergordon, I had tasted leadership and felt the thrill of power, which came from the willing support of thousands of followers. The Party were quick to observe this and to draw me into active association with them. It was not long before I was in the thick of the political battle on their side and liking it.[[/I]9] ...........................(continues) On his return to England in 1938, he converted to Moral Rearmament, and then to the Catholic Church, and in both he was for a short time a prize exhibit as a converted Communist. He later wrote a book which is a farrago of nonsense and self-aggrandisement.[12] Copeman was closely monitored by the British Security Service MI5 for years.[13] One note in the file, written by his commander, describes Copeman as "one of these fiery people, who will shout about everything". The officer draws special attention to the fact that Copeman was once heard "singing the Red Flag in the streets of Devonport".[14] [B]Nevertheless, when the Second World War came "he was to play a significant role in organising civilian protection against German air-raids in London and was decorated".[15] In this capacity, he gave several lectures to the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace.[16] In November 1948, he was made an officer of the Order of the British Empire for services to London[/B]. Shortly afterwards, he was received into the Roman Catholic church. He remained active in politics, though over the years he mellowed. He became a "popular Trades Union organiser"[8] and a Labour Party councillor on Lewisham Borough Council. He and his wife, Kitty, had four children. Copeman died in London in 1983. [CENTER]-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/CENTER] Little h

[QUOTE=Harley;10058964]Some academics do actually base what they write on fact sometimes. My quoting of Bell was in response to Old Salt's rather foolish characterisation that "those in Admiralty were just deskbound aristocrats." I would like to hear him explain that one. As to Tomkinson, if he'd prevented the assemblies on the 14th things may well have been different. With relation to the Admiralty breaking promises, were the Articles of War still being regularly read out?[/QUOTE] Harley I am sorry you seem to have your knicks in a twist, my “ foolish characterization” was nothing other than a statement of facts. 1. Putting it nicely, the top brass at Admiralty were extremely unlikely to have risen from the ranks. 2. With limited transport in those days, the Admirals did not often get to visit the ships. 3. When Admirals visit, the lower deck was the last place to be visited, probably not at all. 4. Their last sea appointment was probably some years ago, even then as Flag Officers they had very little contact with the men. 5. Their views were based on ‘old Navy’, ignoring that with advanced technology the men were better educated but were not better treated. Incidentally, I speak with personal experience of the class distinction in the RN. How about you ? Hopefully things are better than when I was young. Brian

Old Salt: 1. You're right. At the time of Invergordon the last rating to make it to Flag Rank had been Sir John Kingcome who was promoted to Rear-Admiral of the Blue in 1857. The next man to reach Flag Rank from the Lower Deck was Sir Benjamin C. S. Martin in 1944. 2. I fail to see what your point is here. Travel certainly wasn't a difficulty. 3. If you had Admiral's inspections where they didn't go through the lower deck then the Navy certainly had hit a low ebb. These were certainly a feature of the Victorian and Edwardian Navies. 4. Field, last sea service was in 1930. Fuller, 1930. Backhouse, 1927. Dreyer, 1929. Preston, 1928. All flying their flags afloat. 5. Your opinion.

[QUOTE=Harley;10059012]I'm sure you have a point, TCC: What is it? EDIT: It might interest you to know that prior to 1919 Admirals hadn't had a pay rise for at least 60 years. In the same period the pay of an Able Seaman had doubled (and that's to the 1925 rate, not the 1919 rate).[/QUOTE] So my grandad, an able seaman at this time was rich after all. :rolleyes:

In this thread there have been various comments on the rates of pay. The real problem was that men were on two different rates of pay: Men entering the Service before 1925 i.e. the 1919 - rates of pay – Able Seaman (basic pay) 4s. per day. In 1931 about 70% of ratings were paid on this scale. Men entering the Service from 1925 - rates of pay – Able Seaman (basic pay) 3s per day. In 1931 about 30% of ratings were paid on this scale. 1931 reduction – the men on the 1919 rates had their pay reduced to that of the men on the 1925 rates e.g. the basic pay of an AB (1919) was reduced from 4s. to 3s. per day. The basic pay of an AB on the 1925 rates was not affected by this savage reduction but they would lose 10% - the general cut accross the board. The reduction in the 1919 rates of pay broke two earlier undertakings by the Board of Admiralty. It was widely expected in the Service that the members of the Board would resign their seats but none did so. Seven Captains were relieved of their commands.

[QUOTE=patroclus;10059080]In this thread there have been various comments on the rates of pay. The real problem was that men were on two different rates of pay: Men entering the Service before 1925 i.e. the 1919 - rates of pay – Able Seaman (basic pay) 4s. per day. In 1931 about 70% of ratings were paid on this scale. Men entering the Service from 1925 - rates of pay – Able Seaman (basic pay) 3s per day. In 1931 about 30% of ratings were paid on this scale. 1931 reduction – the men on the 1919 rates had their pay reduced to that of the men on the 1925 rates e.g. the basic pay of an AB (1919) was reduced from 4s. to 3s. per day. The basic pay of an AB on the 1925 rates was not affected by this savage reduction but they would lose 10% - the general cut accross the board. The reduction in the 1919 rates of pay broke two earlier undertakings by the Board of Admiralty. It was widely expected in the Service that the members of the Board would resign their seats but none did so. Seven Captains were relieved of their commands.[/QUOTE] Patroclus, That information regarding the pay of Able Seaman kinda wrecks the oft times quoted maxim:- 'united we stand - divided we fall' which could've readily been re-written, thus:- 'divided by pay - united we stand';) A reserved 'well done the lads' - and what did the gaffers expect comes to mind. Little h

[QUOTE=harry.gibbon;10059085]Patroclus, That information regarding the pay of Able Seaman kinda wrecks the oft times quoted maxim:- 'united we stand - divided we fall' which could've readily been re-written, thus:- 'divided by pay - united we stand';) A reserved 'well done the lads' - and what did the gaffers expect comes to mind. Little h[/QUOTE] If you have not already seen it, the views of an officer (aft through the hawsehole) who was present at Invergordon are in the Naval Review, 1976 No. 2, (online at [url]http://www.naval-review.org/tblcont.asp[/url]).

[B][B]Extracted from the NAVAL REVIEW 1976[/B][/B] [B][B]"Epilogue [/B][/B] What was the cause? Who was responsible? Simple questions with simple answers. The cause was without doubt the issue of the A.F.O. And the responsibility rests firmly on the shoulders of those who authorised the contents and the issue of the said A.F.O. Did these people suffer the consequences of their action'? Why did Admiral Tomkinson, who protested till his death, have to be made a scapegoat? For it is and was so obvious that no one could have done anything to alter the course of events. The remarks of Vice-Admiral Elkins as reported in the press regarding the use of 'proper channels' are much to be criticised because had they in fact been used the disciplinary machine would have choked to death; a few would have been selected for further treatment and the lot swept under the carpet. Once again we have the classical example of there being 'No bad soldiers but only bad generals'. I think it is safe to say that all troubles stem from above by commission or omission. On a personal note let me say that I have the greatest admiration for the Royal Navy, my only regret being to have met certain types of officer who would be better out of the Service. There have been suggestion that it was all a deep laid 'plot' by 'commies'. This, as I have tried to show is just plain nonsense. If there had been no A.F.O. then there would have been no trouble. Let it not be thought that this is 'sour grapes', for my time in the R.N., nigh on thirty years, was in the main very happy, and my time among the officers, thirteen years, was most pleasant and I found that there were many 'officers and gentlemen' still. In conclusion I may aver that the Invergordon affair was a typical 'English revolution', peaceful, friendly and with- out malice." A. J. C. FARLOW the Naval Review, 1976 No. 2, (online at [url]http://www.naval-review.org/tblcont.asp[/url]). jainsi31

Patroclus & Jim, are you sure it's No. 2 from 1976? I'm looking through my copy and can't find Farlow's article.

[QUOTE=Harley;10059107]Patroclus & Jim, are you sure it's No. 2 from 1976? I'm looking through my copy and can't find Farlow's article.[/QUOTE] Certain. Last article in No. 2. Follow the URL through the Index. Page 157.

All I get is Commander Harry Pursey's article (which is certainly interesting enough). I'm interested in where the Farlow article originated which Jim seems to indicate came from the same issue.

Ah! wait a minute-Harley you have to select 1976/ item 2,then p.157 and scan the index of that issue for Farlow's comment. jainso31

I think you may have meant No. 1, 1975, Jim, for the article you quoted from..

No- Harley-Year 1976/item2/p157/scan for Invergordon Mutiny/scan for Farlow's comment-Epilogue jainso31

[B][B]Conclusion [/B][/B] IF the 1925 Conservative Government, which introduced the 1s. p.d. cut for neu entry A.B.s, or the 1931 Labour Government which approved the cut for pre-1925 entries, or the National Government which introduced it, OR the sea Lords or civil servants responsible, had appreciated that the cut was twenty-five per cent of basic pay, and IF it had been reduced to ten per cent in 1925 or 1931 - as finally decided - there would have been no mutiny. the Naval Review, 1976 No. 2, (online at [url]http://www.naval-review.org/tblcont.asp[/url]).[B][B]Now reads as above-most curious!!??[/B][/B] NB- Farlow's piece IS in 1975/issue 1/p71[B][B]-apologies for doubting you Harley;[/B][/B] but I have to say that is NOT where I found it this morning H. PURSEY

Jainso31, great work on the mutiny. In fact all your articles are well researched and written. I feel they are a real contribution to the forum. Do you plan to do any future articles on the retirement years of Jellico, and Beattys time as lord of the admirality in the 1920's-30's? Also an article about the consequenses of the 1930 London naval treaty whereby the British lost the Iron Duke class and Tiger, while the U.S. lost only the 2 Florida class battleships (no loss there!) and some very very old crusiers would be greatly appreciated. Keep up the really fine work. I look forward to it as i'm sure we all do. Cadillac811

My sincere thanks for the accolade cadillac 811-it is very much appreciated.A second thank you for your suggestions -which I will certainly bear in mind.Watch this space. jainso31

[QUOTE=Harley;10059048]The sailors involved might have deluded themselves into thinking it was just a [B]strike[/B], but it was [B]mutiny[/B], pure and simple. A conspiracy to refuse lawful orders en masse. It doesn't matter if they didn't hang anyone or take over: the Articles of War conveniently provided for mutiny accompanied with violence and mutiny without. The penalties were only marginally less draconian - only the ringleaders faced death under the latter crime.[/QUOTE] File it under Semantics, bud.

I don't think so, [B]bud[/B].

A review of all reports on the Invergordon Mutiny in the Naval Review is given via the link below:- Type "Invergordon" in the Search Box and Select jainso31 [url]http://www.naval-review.org/tblcont.asp[/url]

[QUOTE=Harley;10059069]Old Salt: 1. You're right. At the time of Invergordon the last rating to make it to Flag Rank had been Sir John Kingcome who was promoted to Rear-Admiral of the Blue in 1857. The next man to reach Flag Rank from the Lower Deck was Sir Benjamin C. S. Martin in 1944. 2. I fail to see what your point is here. Travel certainly wasn't a difficulty. 3. If you had Admiral's inspections where they didn't go through the lower deck then the Navy certainly had hit a low ebb. These were certainly a feature of the Victorian and Edwardian Navies. 4. Field, last sea service was in 1930. Fuller, 1930. Backhouse, 1927. Dreyer, 1929. Preston, 1928. All flying their flags afloat. 5. Your opinion.[/QUOTE] Harley Re: travel : Admirals could not hop on a Navy plane or helicopter in those days to show a presence and concern. Re: Flag Officers : were distant from the lower ranks afloat or ashore. Although some may have seen an Admiral daily , few ever got to meet with one. Rule No. 1 The buck always stops at the top. You really should try to see past the Rules and Regulations and see the poor leadership of the Admiralty Lords for what it was. .. They had ample notice of the concerns of the men they commanded..: Being ‘ upper class’ they had not the slightest idea of bringing up a family on the pay of an AB . ( I have listened to family personal accounts) . A pay cut of 25% spelt disaster for those families. but the Board acted in an extraordinarily unconcerned and heavy handed manner…. . Prompt action to restore a 10% pay cut to all men would have solved the situation. They lost the respect of their men by the way they mishandled the situation and compounded things by going back on their word re: punishment. The RN suffered accordingly iin the eyes of the nation What could they have done ? Followed the example of Lord Beatty who simply refused to pass on pay cuts to his men . Had the same leadership qualities of Sir John Kelly who restored self respect to the Home Fleet. Brian

More Posts

Everything we obtain for this site is shown on the site, we do not have any more photos, crew lists or further information on any of the ships.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE. ALL IMAGES DISPLAYED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW, AND ARE OWNED BY CRANSTON FINE ARTS OR THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS. NO REPRODUCTION OR COPYING ALLOWED ON OTHER WEBSITES, BOOKS OR ARTICLES WITHOUT PRIOR AGREEMENT.

Contact Details
Shipping Info
Terms and Conditions
Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy

Sign Up To Our Newsletter!

Stay up to date with all our latest offers, deals and events as well as new releases and exclusive subscriber content!

This website is owned by Cranston Fine Arts. Torwood House, Torwoodhill Road, Rhu, Helensburgh, Scotland, G848LE

Contact: Tel: (+44) (0) 1436 820269. Email: cranstonorders -at- outlook.com

Return to Home Page