§ MR. MONSELLI trust the House will allow me to call its attention to a matter personal to myself, which occurred on Monday last during the discussion on Fortifications. On that occasion I alluded to a number of distinguished military and naval officers who had protested against the scheme proposed by the Government, and said I believed the number would have beeen much greater but for a stringent rule of the service which prevented officers on full pay from expressing their opinion upon such subjects. I went on to state that I knew one case of a captain in the navy on full pay, who had been told that while on full pay he was to keep his mouth shut; and I added, that although, feeling the importance of the question of fortifications, he had requested to be placed on half-pay, his request had been refused. My noble and gallant Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty asked me to what officer I referred, and I replied it was Captain Coles. Thereupon my noble Friend said I had entirely misrepresented the facts of the case; and he went on to state, that when Captain Coles applied to be put on half-pay, the Admiralty told him that there would be no objection, but that while he remained on full pay it was not competent to him to write letters to the newspapers relative to 506 the cupola shields which he was constructing for the Admiralty. I hold in my hand a letter from Captain Coles, in which he entirely corroborates the statement which I had made on his authority. He states that by a letter dated the 10th of May last he applied, with a view to be free to express his opinion, to be placed upon half-pay, and that up to this hour he has not received any reply to that letter. He is sure, he says, that every one will consider this as equivalent to a refusal, as he is retained on full pay, and, indeed, was told verbally in the way of conversation that it was not convenient to the Admiralty to put him on half-pay. He goes on to state, with reference to some letters which he had addressed to The Times bearing generally on the question of fortifications, that he had had an interview with Lord Clarence Paget, who had reproached him for having written those letters, and had called his attention to the Admiralty Order prohibiting officers on full pay from making any remarks upon any public question. Under these circumstances, I venture to submit that the statement I made on Monday last was literally true.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETIn answer to the remarks by my right hon. Friend, I think it fair to put the House in possession of the history of Captain Coles's communications with the Admiralty, with regard to his being placed on half-pay. My right hon. Friend stated, the other night, that Captain Coles had requested to be put on half-pay in order that he might be free to express his opinion on the question of fortifications. It was my duty, sitting here and hearing that statement, and having a full knowledge of all the communications which had passed between the Admiralty and Captain Coles, to give a distinct denial to the statement of my right hon. Friend. I admitted that Captain Coles had applied to be put on half-pay, and I shall now tell the House why he made the application. Perhaps it will simplify the matter if I read to the House a letter which was sent from the Admiralty to Captain Coles to-day in reply to a renewed application from him to be put on half-pay. The House will see the grounds upon which Captain Coles originally applied to be put on half-pay, as well as the reasons why his request never came to be carried out.
MR. LYGONI rise to order. I submit that it is hardly right for a Minister 507 to read a part of an incomplete correspondence.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe noble Lord has risen to speak upon a matter of personal explanation, and he desires to give the best information he can to the House.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETThe letter from the Admiralty to Captain Coles is dated the 17th of July, 1862, and is as follows:—
Sir,—Having received and laid before My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty your letter of the 15th inst., with its enclosure, I am commanded by their Lordships to acquaint you that they have no objection to placing you on half-pay, in accordance with your request; but, to prevent any misconception, my Lords think it right to recapitulate the circumstances connected with your application. On the 3rd of May last you wrote to their Lordships asking for payment of your account for travelling and subsistence money. On the 8th of the same month you were informed that your account was allowed, but were acquainted that it has not been the practice for officers borne for full pay, and whose duties are not of a temporary nature, to claim subsistence money for each day in the month, but only for those days on which they were absent from their usual place of residence. On the 10th you rejoined, stating the grounds on which you had claimed the allowance of £1 per day, in addition to your full pay, and concluding thus:—'I have now the honour most respectfully to request, that should my services be no longer required by their Lordships, I may be placed on the half-pay list of Her Majesty's navy. I am induced to make this request, as I believe that it will enable me more fully to develop the advantages which I think may be derived from placing guns in revolving shields.' On the 15th of May you had an interview with Sir Frederick Grey and Lord Clarence Paget and were informed that your letter of the 10th of May applying to be put on half-pay, had been received, but the consideration of your request had been deferred until the purchase of your patent had been agreed upon, or the negotiation for it had been terminated. On the 16th of May your solicitor wrote to this Department, accepting the terms offered by My Lords for your patent; and their Lordships, considering that your services would be further required, did not think it necessary to take any further notice of your request to be placed on half-pay. On the 10th of June you applied for your allowances for the month of May, and these, after some correspondence, were sanctioned on the 21st of June. In a letter dated the 19th of the same month, with reference to this question of your allowances, you transmitted a copy of your letter of the 10th of May for the purpose of explaining your views, but without otherwise alluding to the subject of being placed on half-pay. On the 10th of June you were asked for the drawings of the Royal Sovereign, and on the 13th, in reply, you requested certain accommodation and facilities for making your drawings, and asked on what footing you were to be employed. On the 17th you were informed that certain arrangements had been made, and that My Lords had placed you on full pay, and had 508 given you £1 a day in addition so long as your services were required by the Admiralty. In a letter, dated 20th of June, but not sent till the 24th, and received at the Admiralty on the 25th of June, you decline entering into any agreement personally with the Admiralty pending the negotiations then going on between the solicitors, but express your willingness to carry out their Lordships' wishes, receiving a sum per day equivalent to that named by them, with the express understanding that this in no way interferes with the proposed agreement. You did not otherwise allude to the question of half-pay. My Lords do not think it necesssary to enter into any discussion of the motives which have now led you to repeat your request, but they have acceded to it, and have directed you to be placed on half-pay from this day.I only wish to add that the dealings of the Admiralty with Captain Coles have been characterized by the most perfect fairness and exceeding kindness. It is not usual for an officer to receive a considerable sum of money for inventions which have not been practically tried, but they have made an exception in the present case. The Admiralty have expressed their desire to meet Captain Coles's views in every possible way; but, unfortunately, Captain Coles has not met them with the same fairness. Knowing that officer as I have done for many years, I must say that I do not think he would or could have desired, when employed upon a most important business connected with the Admiralty, and when he had met with every possible consideration from the Admiralty, to run counter to them, and to enter into these angry negotiations and correspondences, if he had not been led on by very indiscreet friends. I cannot say that Captain Coles was distinctly or officially told by the Admiralty, in answer to his letter of May 10, that he would be put upon half-pay. Both Sir Frederick Grey and myself, in the personal interview we had with him, earnestly entreated him not to go on half-pay, because it would be very disadvantageous to him; but we also told him, that if after the negotiations then pending had been concluded he should still desire to be put on half-pay, no objection would be offered on the part of the Admiralty. I admit that, he being a personal friend of my own, I conjured him not to press that matter, because he would be injuring his own prospects. The Admiralty never desired for one moment that Captain Coles should not express his opinion on the question of fortifications. Nay, he has given his opinion upon that subject, for he has been examined before the Commissioners, and he 509 has given it very freely. I hope he will continue to express himself with the same freedom on the question of fortifications; but I do maintain that the course he has pursued in reference to fortifications is an entirely different thing from an officer who is employed on special service by the Admiralty writing letters to the newspapers with regard to those particular inventions and that particular business upon which he is employed. I will only say, in conclusion, that I hope Captain Coles will listen to the advice of the Admiralty rather than to that of injudicious friends.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEWere I not aware that the Secretary to the Admiralty holds the high position of a Rear Admiral in Her Majesty's Navy, I should have thought I had for the last few minutes been listening to the speech of the Attorney General on a legal point; because the speech which the noble and gallant Lord has just made, and in which he so emphatically proclaimed his great personal friendship for Captain Coles, while he did all he could to decry that officer in the face of the House, was entirely beside the question. I repeat that the noble Lord altogether ran away from the question which was, the other night, put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), and has given us no adequate information as to whether the statement of my right hon. Friend was or was not correct. That statement, when it was made, was flatly contradicted by the noble Lord, whom I thought it my duty as flatly to contradict on the subject. I have not, I must add, heard anything from the noble Lord to-night which shows that he is distinguished for that accuracy of statement for which members of his profession are generally remarkable. He told us the other night that Captain Coles applied to be put on half-pay, and that the Admiralty told him they had no objection. The Admiralty, however, told Captain Coles no such thing. To his first letter the Admiralty replied, but to his second no answer was returned; and when the noble Lord takes upon himself to contradict an assertion made on authority, he ought, I think, to put himself in the position of knowing the exact facts of the case. The noble Lord may think fit to rank me among Captain Coles's injudicious friends. For such a charge I am perfectly prepared. I will only say, in reply to it, that I cannot congratulate either the Admiralty or the Government in having a 510 Secretary who is so injudicious as to make statements in the House of Commons which are not borne out by facts.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONWhether the hon. Gentleman thinks fit to congratulate the Government or not on having secured the services of my noble Friend the Secretary for the Admiralty, I can assure him that we congratulate ourselves upon that circumstance. As to the statement which my noble Friend has just made, I need only say that it is fresh in the memory of those hon. Members who heard it, and that I am sure they will be ready to admit that it contains the most distinct proofs that the grounds on which Captain Coles applied to be placed on half-pay were not, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick, that he might have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on a particular question adverse to the Government under which he was acting.
MR. LYGONhoped, that when the answer of Captain Coles to the communication of the Admiralty was received, some publicity would be given to it. He thought it very far from advantageous to the public service that letters bearing upon the conduct of an officer should be read to the House before he had an opportunity of replying to the charges which they contained.