CORRESPONDENCE MOVED FOR. (Hansard, 22 February 1861)

MR. HBNNESSY,
in moving for copies of Correspondence which had passed since November, 1853, to the present time, between John Clare, jun., and the Board of Admiralty and the Surveyor of the Navy, on the subject of Mr. Clare's patents and plans for building iron vessels for the Royal Navy, and of similar correspondence with the Board of Trade and with the Treasury, explained that in 1853 Mr. Clare submitted certain plans to the Board of Admiralty for building iron ships, which were condemned and refused by them. Since then a long correspondence had taken place, and Mr. Clare alleged that the Warrior and other iron vessels were now being built on his scheme, and that his patent had been infringed without any remuneration being given him. He understood that the Secretary of the Admiralty objected to the production of the correspondence on account of its length and its irrelevancy, but he should be quite content to have the essential part of it—that which gave the original plans and the decision of the Admiralty upon them, so that the House might be in possession of full information on the subject.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, he felt bound to refuse the production of the correspondence. Mr. Clare's claims had been referred to the Comptroller and the Solicitor of the Navy, and they had decided that they were entirely without foundation. The correspondence was of great length, comprising no less than eighty letters, and was very irrelevant. He, therefore, thought it very unadvisable to produce it. He might add that both the late First Lord and the Secretary of the Admiralty concurred in this course.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, he regretted that the noble Lord had thought proper to refuse to comply with the request of his hon. Friend. He need not remind the noble Lord that for many years there had been 861 frequent charges preferred against the Board of Admiralty for condemning, in the first instance, without due consideration, suggestions laid before them for the benefit of the service, which, in many cases, they had subsequently adopted. The object of his hon. Friend's Motion was to establish the fact that the Admiralty had, in the first instance rejected, and afterwards adopted the plan. It was not one charge but a hundred charges of a similar kind that had been brought against the Admiralty, and that should be a reason why the Government should not refuse to accede to the Motion, especially as his hon. Friend was willing to reduce it within the narrowest possible limits—namely, to the correspondence between Mr. Clare and the Admiralty between the years 1853 and 1854.

§ MR. JACKSON
said, he hoped the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty would consent to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Norfolk. Much had been said about Mr. Clare's claims out of doors, and the Admiralty would only be doing a simple act of justice to themselves in producing the correspondence, so that the public might see whether he was right or wrong in his allegations.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he was not surprised to find that his noble Friend had refused to accede to the Motion as it had been proposed. But he thought his noble Friend might fairly adopt the suggestion that he should give the correspondence which had passed upon that subject in the years 1853 and 1854.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, he would consent to do so.