MR. GUMMING BRUCEsaid, that the statement made by the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir M. Seymour) in an earlier part of that evening, reflecting most injuriously on the character and veracity of a noble Lord with whom he was nearly connected, would, he trusted, be a sufficient excuse for his now intruding—which he did with much reluctance—on the attention of the House. He should have immediately followed the gallant Admiral if he had not thought that some of the noble Lord's colleagues would have felt it expedient to offer some explanation upon his statement. He regretted as much as any man that this personal question should have been raised in either House of Parliament. In justification, however, of his noble Friend, he must say that this bringing of the matter under the notice of Parliament did not originate with him. Certain remarks which fell in particular from the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir John Pakington) seemed to his noble Friend to cast the imputation upon him of having made to the authorities whom he served in England charges which were not justifiable and which could not be supported by facts against the hon. and gallant Admiral. His noble Friend, therefore, thought it necessary to make a statement "in another place;" and towards the close of that statement he said it had been represented that in his despatches he had conveyed the impression that the gallant Admiral had not given him, as Plenipotentiary in China, all the support he required, or that the gallant Admiral's own communications to him had led him to expect. His noble Friend further said that it had been alleged that he ought to have communicated the despatches which contained those charges to the hon. and gallant Admiral; and he mot that allegation by observing that it had never been his practice to do anything of that kind—that he regarded his despatches as confidential communications addressed to the Department which he served; and that it remained with the Secretary of State alone to break their secrecy or make them public. At the same time his noble Friend declared on his honour as a Peer, and avowed his readiness to make the same asseveration on his oath before a court of justice, that he had not only fully stated to the gallant Admiral the substance of the complaints he 1715 had sent home to the Secretary of State, but had also told him that if he (the gallant Admiral) had any complaint to make of his proceedings towards him, or any communication to make upon his despatches as Plenipotentiary, he hoped the gallant Admiral would forward to the Board of Admiralty and the Government any statement or any explanation he might think fit to make. The gallant Admiral had risen in the House that night, and declared that the statement made "in another place" by his noble Friend was inaccurate. This purely personal question, therefore, now seemed to have become one between the veracity of our late Plenipotentiary in China and the memory—certainly not the veracity—of the gallant Admiral, who might have forgotten these verbal communications. Every one at all acquainted with the career of his noble Friend for the seventeen or eighteen years during which he had been in the public service, and who knew the zeal and ability with which he had uniformly served his Sovereign and his country, whether in Jamaica, in Canada, or in the far East, must feel convinced that he was utterly incapable of making any statement—not in his place in Parliament or confirmed by his oath, but any statement of any sort or kind and under any circumstances—that was in the slightest degree inconsistent with the strictest truth. The personal question now raised did not in any way involve the real matter at issue, as far as the public interests were concerned—namely, whether the gallant Admiral did give the support that he had promised or might have given to the noble Lord, or whether he had been hindered by circumstances from doing so. That question must be decided when all the papers that had been moved for were before the House. Deploring as he did the bandying about of charges by Members in one House and Members in the other, in his opinion Parliament could not constitute itself a tribunal capable of determining the question which the hon. and gallant Admiral had raised. Either the House or the Government should issue a Commission empowered to take evidence on oath, and inquire into the whole matter as it now stood. He had every reason for believing that his noble Friend would have no difficulty in establishing, by corroborative testimony, every word that he had used, either in his despatches or in his speech "in another place." But nothing could be more de- 1716 trimental to the public service or more disadvantageous to the character of statesmen than the exchange of contradictions and recriminations between Members in one House of Parliament and Members in the other. His noble Friend had, however, offered no contradiction of anything that had been said by the gallant Admiral. The papers were not yet presented which would enable him to do that; but he had stated what he conceived to be facts; and he trusted the House would give him credit for being utterly incapable, on any private gronnd, of doing the slightest injury to the gallant Admiral, or of making any statement, however minute, that was not consistent with the truth.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONAs my hon. Friend behind me has referred to me, perhaps I may be allowed to express what I believe will meet with the general concurrence of the House—a very strong wish that at present, at least, this matter may go no further. A noble Lord, for whom personally we all feel great respect—a man of great distinction and great ability—has made a statement on his honour as a Peer. On that the gallant Admiral has risen in this House to-night and made a directly counter-statement on his honour as an officer. I do not believe there is a Gentleman in this Assembly who will for a moment doubt any statement so made by the noble Earl, or any statement so made by the gallant Admiral. I think the only conclusion at which we can arrive is, that there has been a most unfortunate, but I doubt not, unavoidable, misunderstanding between them. As far as the public question is concerned, the papers have been moved for, and they will very shortly inform us of the merits of that question one way or the other. As far as I am personally concerned in this matter, I am well content to leave it to those papers to show the part the late Government took in relation to it, and the reasons on which the late Board of Admiralty acted. I do not deny that it was a subject of regret to the late Board of Admiralty—and here I think I am right in the fact I now advert to—that lying side by side in the Gulf of Pecheli, as I believe the gallant Admiral and the noble Earl did, the noble Earl should have sent home a despatch seriously criminating the gallant Admiral, not, indeed, without showing him that despatch, but without telling him what were its contents, and what was the nature of his charges; so that it was only through the 1717 circuitous mode of receiving a despatch from the Admiralty calling on him for an explanation that the hon. and gallant Admiral was informed of the nature of the charges. It is a subject of regret that the misunderstanding should have occurred; but the noble Earl has declared, and I willingly accept his statement, that he acted from what he believed to be a sense of public duty. Under these circumstances I do hope that this painful question—which I believe can only have arisen from misapprehension between the parties—may, at least for the present, not be allowed to proceed further. When the despatches are on the table, the House will be able to judge of the merits of the question.