Ask most of the people about what was important to the Navy at the beginning of the 20th century and they would probably mention the unrest in Europe leading to the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and Franz Ferdinand's wife Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, in Sarajevo , the build up of German forces ergo to the Great War, but from the earliest days of 1900 onwards the navy were dogged with a whole host of domestic issues which were troublesome, costly and time consuming. One I will briefly mention was the planning for and subsequent building of the largest battle cruiser we ever had in the fleet the 'Hood' which from beginning to end caused many headaches and a handful of deaths with so many changes along the way that they are undocumented as a ships file, found if one cares to look, piecemeal, and too many to list here. All of them pre-occupied the Navy Works Department in some way of others and of course the Naval Constructor Branch and the build Yards.

  Remember we were at war at this time down south in South Africa with the Second Boer War, which was a proper and nasty war compare to the First War which was short and really uneventful relative to the Second War, in China in what was called the Opium War and in the middle east in Egypt, and all the while the Naval personnel department was in turmoil and a constant state of flux. Another reminder for you was that the accommodation/training hulks were going going gone, and untold hundreds of thousands of pounds were being swallowed-up building HMS Vivid [Devonport Barracks], HMS Victory [Portsmouth Barracks], HMS Pembroke [Chatham Barracks], HMTE Shotley [which became RNTE Shotley and then HMS Ganges, and the icing on the property portfolio, BRNC at Dartmouth. There were others but these will do for the time being and for my story. ALL of those shore barracks were designed for hammocks and NOT beds and it was in the 1920's after WW1 that beds supplanted hammocks or "mic's" as they were known. The very size of the Shotley messes [officially known as Bungalows] were scheduled to accommodate up to 50 slinging positions, that's those criteria on dimensions used, and anyway, it wasn't a strange choice because even Dartmouth cadets slept in mic's. Then along came the Head of the Naval Medicine Branch who said that hammocks were all well and good for developed bodies but totally unsuitable for young boys - they needed beds so they could move around and stretch their limbs etc, so the whole of the Shotley build demanded a rethink because the area of a bungalow was too small to take 50 beds meaning that more bungalows than planned had to be built, which brought on board Benbow Lane and Division. Down west at the BRNC the same went for cadets who in so many cases were much younger than Ganges boys, meaning that they also got beds leaving older midshipmen sleeping in mic's.

  However treat the foregoing merely as an introduction, for my title is R.N. Canteens and that's where I intend to go next.

  Canteens serving the army and the navy were established willy-nilly at home primarily, but when possible in certain foreign garrisons and ports chiefly in Malta, Gibraltar, and in areas of Asia in particular serving the Indian Raj and East Indies stations especially at our base in China at Wei Hai Wei, Hong Kong and Singapore. Both services acted on this issue quite separately and rumors were rife that a service mafia was at play overseeing much corruption and racketeering.

  In an attempt to kill off overt corruption in the home front, the War Office in 1917 brought in a Committee known as the Army Canteen Board which was soon joined by the Admiralty to be known as the Navy and Army Canteen Board applying to the home front. It had "teeth" but blunted ones and dissatisfaction continued. In 1919 the Committee's powers were extended to foreign stations. Come the first of January 1921, almost immediately defeating commecial corruption, allowing instead the Committee a corporate trading front, the abandoned of the canteens led to the nucleus of the NAAFI Company, which from the onset did get rid of the corruption, cheating the racketeering endemic in the Army/Navy Canteen Committee system.

  WHAT FOLLOWS is a debte on NAVY ESTIMATES, an annual event in both the Commons and the Lords, which took place on the 30th March 1903 repeat 1903 in the House of Common which revealed the complaints flooding in from the Fleet and the necessary changes demanded which didn't become effective for another eighteen years to begin a resolution to the all invasive problem and a further two years after that to put in place an all telling and lasting fix. At that time 1903, the friendly canteen manager we all remember affectionately called the "canteen damager" from post WW2 times, was nothing less than a crook and a scoundrel.

Extract of House of Commons Debate

  The House debate is already well established as we begin our eavesdrop!

  My comments added in red bold underlined font below. Reading this report, as I hope you will and thoroughly, your hearts will be deeply saddened by the way our forebears were treated. I always keep in mind that in thirteen years time in 1916, 6000 RN sailors, officers and ratings will be slaughtered in a time frame measuring just a few hours [less than 12 hours which was the Battle at Jutland], and that discipline was harsh and cruel and pay was a joke! I would sum up this period as pure nautical serfdom !

Basically their food and sustenance came from two sources one for peace time and one for war time. The Admiralty had to stock pile every conceivable product ready for war when they became the fleet victuallers. They had bulk-bought and their stores often had items which were forty years old when WW1 began in 1914, By this time all perishables were stale, inedible and lacking totally in any nutritious value and beef and mutton frozen at the abattoir and sold direct into Admiralty was often 30 years old before issue, and to quote the fleet foul and sickening to have in one's mouth. Moreover, at the purchase date, they had paid 'peanuts' to the suppliers, and whilst food could be stored almost indefinitely by the Admiralty always providing no one in the victualling system was ever invited to eat it of necessity, ammunition was not stock piled for any length of time for fear of a chemical reaction which would render it virtually useless, so it was treated as items in ready-use lockers and when the balloon did go up, the nation kicked down and filled ammunition factories on 24 hour shifts with mainly women. In peace time the Admiralty supplied food, fresh food, and unfrozen carcasses butchered on board by the ships butchers [usually Royal Marines] but in relatively small quantities, for the Canteen profits paid for the bulk of the food required, at which time/periods the Canteen System was the front-line victualler and much of what the Admiralty indirectly supplied came from civilian ships chandlers. Thus the Admiralty left the onus on ships canteen committees to generate enough profits to feed the crew and they knew from day one that that would cause great and unbearable pressure on what were, even for those times, pathetic and poor-house wages for our royal sailors. The men had to buy from the canteen even for basics and often ran up a mess bill which was higher than their monthly wages [because of the rip-off prices] and they couldn't pay them. The commanding officer punished them with leave stoppages until they could pay, and with stoppages of canteen privileges [now there's a good laugh - privileges?] in the meantime. This led to acts or arson with crew members throwing Admiralty property into the sea and other acts of disobedience. Please remember that the occurrences were extant even though the Admiralty had taken over as the prime victuallers at the start of WW1 and the canteen funds/profits reduced accordingly, and although now at war, sailors were still punished until their mess bills were cleared: some poor souls were killed defending our country deeply in debit because of the victualling system then vogue.

  MR. PRETYMAN [was the M.P. for WOODBRIDGE in SUFFOLK quite near to Ipswich an ex-British Soldier and he was the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. Here, in the short text snippet below he was answering questions on other matters within the Navy Estimate debate asked of him before we began our eavesdrop pointed out that there were about 15,000 active service ratings in the Mediterranean Fleet, of which Malta was the headquarters, and it was of enormous importance that the men should be provided with some rational amusement when ashore. The men themselves, out of the canteen takings, provided considerable sums for the furnishing and running of the canteen and for providing amusement, recreation, and instruction for themselves. This matter had received very careful attention. The theatre [Grand Harbour at Corradino] was on Admiralty property, and as the Admiralty had for national purposes to retain power to resume possession of the land at any moment, it was not thought right that the savings of the men should be applied to the erection of permanent buildings in which they could not be allowed any property; therefore it had been decided to provide money and place it on the Votes [the annual grant of money to the Admiralty from the Government]. With regard to the church at Eastney, the marine barracks were a considerable distance from any existing church; a new church was absolutely necessary, and it had always been the policy of Parliament to provide money for the erection of churches or chapels for large garrisons, whether naval or military, where the men had not sufficient access to the parish church [it is a lovely church and still very much in existence today]. As to the swimming bath, the hon. Member appeared to be of the opinion of the man who declared he would never go into the water until he could swim. These baths were for teaching the men to swim, and were part of the establishment. [they too are still operational today as a public swimming pool built on part of the beach and under it just outside the erstwhile RM barrack perimeter, now a private dwelling complex, at the far eastern end of the Eastney promenade in the near proximity of Southsea's nudist beach.

  Vote agreed to.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,292,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."

  Sir Hudson KEARLEY [was the MP for Devonport and for my reasons was the main mover of the subject matter] said that this Vote was £200,000 in excess of the normal sum. The dietary of the Navy was a matter he had taken a considerable interest in for some years and he had raised the matter almost every year. His complaint in the past had been in regard to the lack of variety in the food, because for many years the dietary of the Navy had remained without any deviation. The meal hours used to be very curious indeed, and he was very glad that the Admiralty had now recognised that the complaints made in former years, both with regard to the lack of variety in the food and the meal hours were well founded. The Admiralty now recommended that there should be five recognised meal times during the day, finishing up with a supper at half-past seven or eight o'clock at night. This would prove to be a great boon to the men, because under the old system a man used to get his last meal at half-past four, and he had to be on duty sometimes at four or five o'clock the next morning, and that was a great trial. As regarded the rations, the Committee which had gone into this question recommended an increase in variety and also an increase in quantity. It would be seen that the Committee's recommendations were fairly liberal from the fact that the additional cost was £187,000 per year. Since the Committee's Report was published the Navy had continued to increase, and he doubted very much whether the actual increase in the future would be less than £200,000 a year. This increase only applied to the service rations [the bit the Admiralty provided as the sub-victuallers, the prime victuallers being the canteens], and in addition to that the seamen had to supplement their dietary out of their own money, out, of savings obtained by a money grant for rations which they did not consume. The amount of these savings was largely increasing; that was to say, that the money grant in lieu of rations was largely increasing. The total amount voted this year for food was in round figures £1,288,000, and the amount paid back in savings was £520,000. A large portion of the service rations were therefore, not taken up at all [meaning that what the Admiralty had set aside to issue wasn't required perhaps because although expensive, canteen food and goods were far more attractive. Sailors probably guessed and rightly that the Admiralty were shifting old stock gathered ready for war and were glad to get rid of it, so no gesture of kindness merely a need to get rid of things before the rats grew bigger.

  As the canteens now formed an official part of the victualling of the Fleet, he [the lead speaker, Sir Hudson Kearley] wished to call attention to their management. The Committee pointed out that the extension of the system of canteens had affected the quantity of service rations taken up by the men. If any further evidence was required he only needed to mention the fact that the annual canteen turnover of a battleship amounted to something like £6,000 a year [In 2020 that amount is worth £734,350.56] . One would have supposed that the Admiralty would have considered it their duty to instruct the Committee to inquire into the conduct and management of canteens, but the terms of the reference almost excluded it from their consideration. Hon. Members would find it stated in the Report that the Admiralty were not prepared to consider the question of the management of these canteens being placed directly under the Government, because they were satisfied that their existence on board ship gave great comfort to the men, and that the present system, under which they were practically managed by the men themselves, with certain officers for disciplinary purposes, was a sound one. Those were the terms of the reference laid down by the Admiralty, and they seemed to think that there was no room for any particular improvement, and they would have no hand whatever in the conduct and management of the canteen. He would try to prove that the system was not a good one, and he believed that he would be able to show that under the present canteen system corruption and bribery were rampant, that the men were "fleeced" and robbed, and that it was really such an important part of the victualling of the Navy that he did not think the Admiralty were justified in allowing this state of things to go on. He thought it was the supreme duty of the Admiralty to see that the management of these canteens was made efficient.

  There were two systems of canteens, one called the service or co-operative system, and the other the tenant system. The tenant system mainly applied to depôts and barracks, and was more of a shore system, but the co-operative system prevailed most generally upon ships in commission away from the harbours. Nominally, under the co-operative system, the management was under the control of an officer who was the president of the committee. The committee was supposed to be elective and thoroughly representative of the lower deck. The committee were responsible for the prices at which the articles were sold, and they controlled the quality also. According to the Report they also distributed the profits. The men had to supplement the dietary by providing money out of their own pockets for the canteen, and they were charged an exorbitant profit upon the cost of the articles. These profits were spent in a variety of ways. They went to provide prizes at sports, general amusements, contributions to service charities, and other purposes. The men were charged an excessive price for their food so that there would be a margin for these purposes. But, as a matter of fact, the actual management of these canteens was run by a small coterie from the lower deck in a hole-and-corner manner, and the crew at large had no idea of what was going on. They very rarely saw the accounts, and if they did see them, they were not in a position to discuss them. This little coterie from the lower deck made a practice of blackmailing the contractor, who, having submitted to the usual commission, regulated his prices accordingly. Therefore the consumer was the man who suffered all the time. Those were rather strong statements to make in the House of Commons, and he should have been a little loth to make them if he could not support them. These things were, however, shown in the Committee's Report. Not long ago he wrote to Lord Selborne, asking for a copy of the evidence given before this Committee, and he also asked whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to publish the evidence. Lord Selborne replied that the Admiralty had no intention of publishing that evidence because it was given before a Departmental Committee. The Committee had abundant evidence that bribery existed. He had a fair acquaintance with the men on the lower deck, having known a number of them for the last twelve years. He had heard what they had to say, but he did not press this subject simply because he was the representative of Devonport. He had received information from various channels in all parts of the world. It was no question of his constituents; in fact, the bulk of his information came from various stations where ships were in commission; and everything he had been told, verified the Report of the Committee who inquired into the matter.

  The recommendation of the Committee was hardly worth considering seriously. It was that in future the commanding officer should have the selection of the canteen system to be employed—that was to say, whether it was to be the co-operative system or what was called the tenant system. The commanding officer was also to have the selection of the tradesmen who were to supply the canteen. In another part of the Report it was mentioned that officers had the greatest objection to running these canteens, they had not the necessary training, and he did not think that particular recommendation would lead to much reform. He doubted whether any commanding officer would be able, single-handed, to stop the system of bribery and corruption which prevailed. He had a small bundle of letters in his hand, written not to him directly, but to the editor of a service paper, from fifty-six ships in commission, and from every station where the Navy went, complaining of this vile system of blackmailing and robbery. He thought these were not too strong terms to use. He was not going to attempt to shield the men who did the blackmailing. He did not say that it took place on every ship. He was perfectly willing to hand the letters to the Admiralty if they treated them confidentially and did not bring the men to book for complaining. He had classified the articles referred to, and had taken only those of daily consumption. He had put against them what would be a fair price for the men to pay on shore at home ports. The canteen price for sugar was 3d. to 6d. per lb. against 1½d.; cheese, 1s. to 1s. 4d. per lb. against 7d.; tea (which was free from duty on board His Majesty's ships) 1s. 8d. to 1s. 10d. per lb. against 10d.; tinned salmon, 9d. to 11d. per tin against 5d.; tinned herrings, 6½d. to 8d. per tin against 4d.; rice, 3d. to 5d. per lb. against 1½d.; currants, 8d. to 11½d. per lb. against 3d.; tapioca, 5d. to 6½d. per lb. against 2½d.; peel, 9d. to 1s. 7d. per lb. against 4d.; raisins, 7d. to 9d. per lb. against 3¼d.; Sunlight soap, 1s. to 1s. 1½d. per box against 7½d.; Quaker oats, 10d. to 11¼d. per lb. against 5½d.; and jams, 2½d. per tin against 1d. He had extracted these prices paid on board ship from the letters. He would read some extracts from the letters. From the "Illustrious" in the Mediterranean— I may state that there has been a lot of trouble caused over the canteen of late aboard here. I really cannot side with the men for doing what they did. Their bills were so excessive they refused to pay them. Of course they were had over the coals for this, and eventually the money stopped out of their pay, and then they threw a lot of valuable service gear overboard because they had to pay. I hope that something will be done towards clearing such robbers out of His Majesty's ships. From the "Centurion," Portsmouth— Prices charged are too great according to the ship's company's idea, and the goods that we had were of the most inferior quality and far dearer than bumboat prices anywhere in China or Japan. The ship's company have always been under the impression that the canteen was not properly managed; they had a new canteen committee every quarter—one for each branch; papers were sent round to each mess at the end of each quarter, but the lower deck did not even know who the majority of the votes were for, as it was never put on the canteen notice board. From the "Cruiser," Naples— Maltese canteens are nearly all alike as regards the management of them and the way they are conducted; different prices for different ratings; English weights to-day and Maltese weights to-morrow; selling goods on board at double the price they can be procured ashore, are a few of the failings of the Maltese bumboat system. … Now our canteen is nothing better than the general run of them, if it is not worse. Our commanding officer told us when we were in Malta that if we were not satisfied with this canteen we could have another one. We were not satisfied with it, but we could not see the difference in Antonio Tabonio or Baptista Borda or Michael Borg robbing us, so we decided to retain the former, as we reckoned if we had to be robbed it was immaterial to us which of them it was. It is the system which is rotten, and I think the only way it can be remedied is by abolishing it altogether and substituting a better system. From the "Sans Pareil," Sheerness— The general run of mess bills each month is 7s. 6d. to 10s. per man drawing 5s. per week, poor devils! and if they cannot pay their mess bills their leave is stopped till they can, so most of them get it stopped, as it takes over one week's pay to settle their mess. From the "Cæsar," Lagos Bay— The goods supplied are far from being the best quality—in fact, it may be safely stated that the most inferior goods that can be purchased either from the local or British markets are the general rule. From the "Perseus," Persian Gulf— I am sending an accurate list of our canteen stores, the exorbitant prices of which must surpass the prices of any other ship in the British Navy. Our men are up in arms about it. There are dozens of men whose private canteen bills during the last month have exceeded their month's pay, and then they have only just the bare necessaries of life. We commissioned on March 7th last, and no statement whatever as to canteen accounts has been made, and all we can hear is 'canteen is so much in debt.' At Kurachi, where we could get things cheap, they stopped the bumboatmen from bringing these aboard, as it was stopping the sale of things in our canteen. Some of the things are of a very inferior quality, the butter not being fit for scouring bright work let alone eating. He had scores of letters all contributing the same testimony. The Committee had suggested a reform, but he held that the Admiralty had a far larger responsibility than could be met by carrying out what was proposed. The Admiralty ought themselves to become buyers of those articles which were taken into the canteen, and sell them at a fair margin of profit. The men should not be left to the tender mercies of the scoundrels who blackmailed them by charging extravagant prices. If it would necessitate storage all over the world why not provide it? The present methods were quite out of date. The Admiralty objected to make a change on the ground that it would interfere with the general principles of victualling the Fleet. The general principle of victualling the Fleet was most extraordinary and reeked with red-tape. In time of war the whole service rations, the Admiralty Regulations stated, would be available, all accounts would disappear, and no savings would be granted to the men, who would have to take up their full sea victualling. And in pursuance of that principle the Admiralty said that they had always ready reserve stores to meet the emergencies of war. Therefore they crowded their Victualling Yards with stores which were not consumed, and were largely in excess of their requirements. The result was that the stores deteriorated, and became stale. There was little outlet for the articles in reserve in time of peace because they could be procured on shore. Consequently, when the Admiralty did issue them out of reserve, in the majority of cases they were stale. It was on record that beef thirty years old had been issued to the Fleet, and ten-year-old beef was not uncommon. The Committee said that the beef was satisfactory, but with that he disagreed, and he maintained that the system was antiquated and complicated. The Committee said that these stores were treated like superannuated servants, and after a certain period were compulsorily retired. They were sent to a "rummage" sale, where they fetched a quarter of what they cost. The system was, therefore, not only costly, but it involved the Fleet receiving provisions that were not in a fit state to eat. He contended that, in the face of all these revelations, the Admiralty were not justified in retaining this antiquated system of keeping large reserves. He believed that the only satisfactory thing in the South African war was the feeding of the men. When the war came the manufacturers of the Empire were called upon, and they furnished sufficient supplies for the needs of the Army. He understood that the Admiralty said that the case of the Navy was quite different; but if they could not victual their Fleet in time of war, how could they expect to hold command of the sea in time of war? The Committee were entitled to ask the Admiralty to make some inquiry into this belated system. He sometimes wondered who would have to eat those articles which had been passed out of the reserve stores as not being considered good enough for the men of the Navy!

  He had a few words to say as regarded the question of quality. There were two sources of supply from which rations were stocked for, and distributed to, the Navy—first, contractors, and second, the Government manufactories in the Victualling Yards. The Committee said in their Report that, so far as the quality of the goods supplied by the former was concerned, everything was satisfactory, and that the quality of the goods from the latter was perfectly satisfactory. But from facts frequently brought under his notice, he held that every article manufactured by the Government was bad except cocoa, and the very best proof of that was that the men refused to take them up. On page 16 of this Report of the Committee there was a reference to flour. Now, the Government made their own flour. But the Committee admitted that there was a consensus of opinion among the officers and men that the service flour was inferior to that purchased in the canteen. The service flour was— Coarser, darker in colour, did not mix readily for the purpose of making bread, and was regarded by the men with a good deal of prejudice. The Committee investigated the matter very carefully, and were convinced that although it differed from the canteen flour it was not of inferior quality. Now, he always thought that the consumer was the best judge of the quality of an article: and he insisted that the men of the lower deck were better judges of the service flour than two or three admirals, post-captains, and the other members of the Committee. Again, that Committee said that the flour was manufactured from the finest wheat that could be procured, and underwent no adulteration during manufacture. Nobody suggested that it was adulterated, but why was it that the flour manufactured in the Victualling Yards was "coarser, darker in colour, and did not mix readily for the purpose of making bread?" Were these the attributes of the flour milled from the "finest wheat" by the flour manufacturers in the country provided with the best machinery in the world? Why should the Government engage in this sort of manufacture and in turning out rascally bad flour—as they did? Then take the ships biscuit. The Committee said that there was no real ground of complaint. He had heard that statement over and over again. The fact was that the biscuit was complained of. If there was not very much to be said about the quality of the biscuit, he should have a good deal to say about the cost. He was certain that from some of the best firms of biscuit bakers in the country the Admiralty could get a better quality of biscuit at a much lower price. Again, the Admiralty manufactured their own oatmeal at the Victualling Yards. At page 20 of the Report of the Committee there was a criticism of the consumer of oatmeal. It was said that as an ordinary article of diet oatmeal was not appreciated in the Navy, and, except by stokers, was scarcely ever taken up. Therefore it was to be abolished from the dietary of the Navy. But why did not the men take up the oatmeal? It was because it was a bad article. He had seen the oatmeal himself and he declared that it was shocking to attempt to impose it on the men. It was a libel to call it oatmeal at all; it was a most inferior article. The Scotch had a worldwide reputation for making oatmeal. There were great firms in Scotland who could manufacture oatmeal very much cheaper and better than the Admiralty could manufacture it He had been examining the Victualling Accounts and found that it cost the Government 15s. 9d. per 100 lbs. to manufacture oatmeal, while the price at which they could buy it in the open market, delivered at Deptford, was 11s. 2d. per 100 lbs., so that the Admiralty were imposing an additional tax on the poor seamen of 39 per cent for every 100 lbs. of oatmeal supplied to them from their Victualling Yards. He was perfectly safe in saying that the additional cost of production of those articles in the Victualling Yards was from £10,000 to £20,000. Again, take ships biscuits; the cost of these, manufactured in the Victualling Yards, was 16s. 1d. per 100 lbs.; while he had it from channels that might be relied upon that biscuits as good in quality, if not better, could be purchased by the Government in the open market at 9s. 6d. per 100 lbs. Why should the Admiralty go on producing an inferior article at a cost 41 per cent. dearer than they could purchase it from outside manufacturers of the highest repute? There was another article for which the Admiralty were responsible, and that was suet. There was general complaint throughout the Fleet that this suet was an abomination. It was not fit for anyone to consume; it was wholly insanitary; and were it not for that fact, he would press the hon. Gentleman to have a sample of it placed on the Terrace—he would not suggest the tea room—in order that hon. Members might see for themselves what a vile article it was. He had said enough to show that the whole output of the Government, excepting cocoa, was bad. But as regards that, he would suggest that some of the great cocoa manufacturers in the country would be able to produce the article the Admiralty required at a lower price than they could produce it themselves. He would suggest to the Government that they should reconsider their position as manufacturers, and that they should appoint an expert Committee to inquire into the prices for which the articles they now manufactured could be produced by manufacturers of good repute. They were commonplace products, which did not require technical knowledge, as was required in the manufacture of guns; and there were many firms of the highest reputation in this country and the colonies from which the Admiralty could draw their supplies. In conclusion, he would ask whether the hon. Gentleman was disposed to recommend to the Admiralty that they should grant an inquiry into the manufacturing side of their operations. He was perfectly satisfied that they were costly, and that it would be in the interest of all concerned that they should be discontinued. He begged to move the reduction standing in his name.

  Obviously there is much more to the story but by now you must have the gist.

  As I said, much pain and doubt ensued in the minds of both camps, fleet and Admiralty and festered through Parliament right up to the planning of the Battle of Dogger Bank in December 1914 which was enacted in January 1915 with the Germans shying away from further action, literally taking a year off from full on battle, until Jutland in May and day one of June 1916. The shame of Admiralty victualling didn't leave the war-games arena and whilst the Admiralty and fleet officers were grateful for the apparent outcome of Jutland the ships companies and in some cases the entire ships complement were far from celebratory mood. It is a long way from Whitehall to Jutland not only to the enemy which was not defeated but more worryingly from the vessels they were supposed to nurture, feed, pay, wherein disgruntled sailors were no better off than the hapless army units at the Somme. They were failed almost completely by desk-driving admirals and some would argue by ship-driving admirals? What is certain is that the lower deck and some officers on the upper deck did not cheer the outcome of Jutland or the Admiralty at any time in the first quarter of the 20th century.

  What is very apparent is the difference between the word "CANTEEN" as used pre and in the early years of WW1 with what was inferred a few years after the end of WW1, and to virtually all of us reading this today in 2021: a happy place in which to relax having been well fed elsewhere in the system via the public purse !

Goodbye !

P.S. Taking on the the Admiralty in such a robust and public way did Sir Hudson no harm, in fact ultimately much good. He was created a Peer sitting in the House of Lords first as a Baron and then as a Viscount. He continued fighting Devonport's corner ergo all royal dockyards benefitted, and so too did the ships based on these yards.