Index
Contents: This Issue
Search CHNN
CHNN Home
The Dockyard
and Sabotage Scares, 1933-37
Papers at this conference dealt with alleged Dockyard sabotage from the seventeenth to twentieth centuries. The following is an abstract of the paper of David Turner, who is currently writing his PhD thesis on the CPGB in the Medway towns and who plans to write a joint article on the topic of sabotage with Kenneth Lunn of the University of Portsmouth.
From the outset, the CPGB was seen by the British state as the dangerous agent of a hostile foreign power, carrying out Soviet-inspired acts of subversion, espionage and sabotage against the armed forces of the British Empire.
In consequence, the state began in the 1920s to take what it saw as necessary protective measures Procedures to exclude Communists from government posts involving 'confidential work' seem to have begun in 1925. In 1928 CP members in such posts ceased to be issued with Party cards, becoming 'undercover' members.
In the 1930s, despite the CP's continued small size and lack of significant influence, it was still regarded as a major threat to the security of the state. An important factor in this was the CP's efforts to spread its influence among 'workers in uniform'. This was an important aspect of Party work until mid-1935, but it seems then to have been completely abandoned.
As far as espionage is concerned, it is true that some, very few, CP members were involved in such activities, as the 1938 Woolwich Arsenal spy case demonstrates.
As to sabotage, there would seem to be no political reason why the CP should have engaged in such tactics and there is no evidence that it ever did so However, in the mid-1930s the Admiralty believed that communists were involved in a major campaign of sabotage directed at the Royal Navy; in response, a witch-hunt of communist Dockyard workers was initiated.
Between 1933 and 1936 there occurred nine incidents of apparently deliberate damage to Royal Navy vessels in British Dockyards: four were at Devonport, three at Chatham, one at Sheerness and one at Portsmouth. There was also an incident in a private yard, at Barrow-in-Furness. The Admiralty arrived at the conclusion that as many as six of these could be attributed to politically-motivated sabotage, rather than malicious damage.
In February 1936 John Salisbury was dismissed from Devonport Dockyard 'services no longer requred' ('SNLR'). He was identified by MI5 as the communist ringleader in the Yard, but there was no evidence to show he was a saboteur.
Subsequently, 'positive vetting' (active investigation of personal backgrounds) was introduced for prospective Dockyard employees and a new purge procedure was agreed by the Cabinet, without reference to Parliament.
In September 1936 Harold Easthope, a casual worker at Devonport, whose son was allegedly a Communist, was dismissed.
In January 1937 four workers from Devonport Dockyard (Francis Carne, Alfred Durston, Henry Lovejoy and Edward Trebilcock) and one from Sheerness Dockyard (Henry Law) were dismissed 'SNLR', after MI5 identified them as Communists. None of these men could be proved to have carried out any act of sabotage; they were not prosecuted, not informed of the case against them and not allowed the opportunity to defend themselves.
The Labour opposition tabled a motion of censure over the dismissals. The First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Samuel Hoare, argued that the men were not being sacked for their politics but for 'actions and associations that were calculated to incite to acts detrimental to the safety of the State and the Navy ...'. He maintained that no proof could be presented, in a court of law or anywhere else, as the secret service had to be kept secret.
Meanwhile, Chatham Dockyard the authorities were quite happy to employ a man they knew to be an active member of the British Union of Fascists.
Within the Dockyards the response was muted, as the Dockyard workers exhibited the passivity and conservatism for which they were notorious. This appears to have led the CP itself to devote little effort to fighting the sackings.
There was strong opposition from the broader labour and trade union movement, as a result of which Ernest Bevin protested on behalf of the TGWU (to which two of the dismissed men belonged). However, Prime Minister Baldwin and the First Lord of the Admiralty won Bevin's support by playing on his anti-Communism. Bevin subsequently met with the Head of MI5 to discuss how he could assist in any future such purge.
