RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 22 July 1862)

GENERAL LINDSAY
said, he was induced to bring this subject before the House, because he considered, that though Captain Grant, who had been engaged since 1855 in improving the cooking system of the army, had by his attention to the matter considerably benefited the service, he had not received that consideration from the Government or War Department to which his public services entitled him. Previous to 1855 the barracks were supplied with nothing but the old boilers, which cooked the food so as to pall upon the appetite and drive the soldiers out of the barracks for a change of diet. In 1855, in consequence of the establishment of the camp at Aldershot, Captain Grant was sent for by Lord Hardinge to introduce his system of cooking, which it was thought might be beneficial to the service. Captain Grant established a system of cooking there for 20,000 men, which remained in use at the present day; and, in consequence of the success which attended this first operation, the system was afterwards introduced at Shorncliffe, Woolwich, and, in 1859–60, at the Curragh. He therefore felt he might, without fear of contradiction, state, that unless the Government had found Captain Grant's system successful, they never would have introduced it into other large camps. Now, the services of Captain Grant, the time and labour he had expended in the perfecting of his apparatus being taken into account, deserved, he thought, recognition at the hands of the Government; but he had as yet, he was sorry to say, not only received no compensation whatsoever, but was actually out of pocket—not certainly of a large sum, but to the extent of £280. From 1856 to 1858 various boards and officers had been 665 required to report upon the subject, and every succeeding report was more favourable than its predecessor to Captain Grant's invention, especially on the score of economy; for it seemed that the cost had been reduced from an average of 5s. 10d. to 2s. 6d. Among other officers who had reported in its favour in 1858, were General Maunsell from Shorncliffe, and Colonel Bloomfield from Woolwich. All the reports were favourable to the ambulatory part of Captain Grant's system. Lord Rokeby, Sir Richard Dacres, Sir John Pennefather, Colonel Hudson, Captain Hutchinson, Brigadier Staveley, Colonel Thomas, Colonel St. George, and others had borne strong testimony to its value and efficiency. Captain Grant complained that his system had not been fairly tried. For example, at Aldershot, his kitchen had been cut in two, while at the Curragh his flue had been made nine inches square, instead of twelve inches, thus defeating the object which he had in view. The fact was that Captain Grant had been guilty of a great success, and that success had brought upon him many enemies. It was only just that an officer who had devoted his time to the public service should receive some recognition from the Government. Up to the present time Captain Grant had not got anything for his services, although his new system of cooking had been adopted for 10,000 men at Aldershot, for 3,000 at Woolwich, for 5,000 at Shorncliffe, and for 5,000 at the Curragh, and although he had paid all the preliminary expenses out of his own pocket. He thought that one year's ascertained saving in the consumption of fuel on two-thirds of the strength of the British army in England would be a fair and liberal mode of remuneration. If Captain Grant's system were bonâ fide carried out, it would, he believed, effect a saving of £50,000 a year in fuel. What he proposed was that three or four competent persons should be appointed to inquire whether Captain Grant's inventions were not beneficial to the service and economical to the country. If it were not found to be so, Captain Grant would seek no remuneration from the country. On the part of the army, he must say Captain Grant was looted upon as a great benefactor to the service; his ambulatory arrangements for cooking, where great masses of men were collected together, would be found one of the greatest blessings to the army in the field that had ever been proposed by 666 any officer in the service. He concluded by moving— That it is the opinion of this House that the services which Captain Grant has rendered to the public by the economy and improvement which he has introduced into the system of Field and permanent Cooking in the Army, and by his invention of the Ambulatory Cooking Apparatus, are entitled to recognition.

§ MR. J. R. O. GORE
seconded the Motion.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that the Motion of the hon. and gallant Officer was substantially for a grant of money; and if the words of his Motion left any doubt upon the subject, his speech and the letter of Captain Grant, dated June 10, entirely removed it. With regard to the expenses incurred by Captain Grant in his invention, he had already been reimbursed. His present claim was purely for remuneration; and the hon. and gallant Member had given an assessment as to its amount, because he said Captain Grant considered that a saving of £50,000 a year had been, or might be, effected by carrying out his system of cooking, and he suggested that two-thirds of that amount for one year should be awarded to Captain Grant by way of remuneration. Now, according to the Standing Orders of the House, a petition for a grant of money relating to the public service must be recommended by the Crown, and a Resolution to that effect must be agreed to in a Committee of the Whole House; whereas, this Resolution was moved with the Speaker in the chair, and was in substance a violation of the Standing Orders. He therefore objected to the Motion upon that general ground. But, adverting to Captain Grant's claims, the hon. and gallant Officer seemed to think that he (Sir G. Lewis) had declined to go into the merits of the question, and had given no time to its investigation. He could assure him that was not the case. He had investigated the question, and, as far as documents to which he had access could inform him, he was unable to say that there was any sufficient ground for altering the decision of his predecessor; for he must contend that a decision had been arrived at, and was formed on the report of Messrs. Warriner and Guerrier. Of course it was quite competent to Captain Grant to dispute the accuracy and fairness of that report, and, undoubtedly, inventors were often dissatisfied with the judgment pronounced on inquiry with regard to their claims for remuneration. He could only 667 say that there was no prejudice against Captain Grant's cooking apparatus; it had received a fair trial, and the result was not to induce the War Department to extend it any further, or recommend it where it was not now used. It was not advantageous on the score of economy. The quantity of fuel it consumed for a small number was quite as great as by the cooking apparatus on the old system. Where the number was great there was some economy. But there were several other cooking processes in which the economy was greater than in Captain Grant's. It must be remembered that there was not here any great field for novelty or invention, and he who came forward with any great secret in cooking, founded on any abstruse or refined system of combination, must be supposed to draw very largely on the credulity of the world. The fact was that Captain Grant's system had received a fair trial in the judgment of those most competent to form an opinion, and it was not considered so beneficial as other systems which were also used in barracks. Captain Grant had already been compensated for all the expenses he had incurred. He was originally on full pay and was now on half-pay, and he could not therefore be said to be unremunerated for his services. With regard to his ambulatory apparatus, an investigation was going on, and he could not at present express an opinion; but he must say no ground had been laid for voting public money to the extent of £25,000 or £30,000 to Captain Grant for the invention of his cooking apparatus.

COLONEL NORTH
said, he had listened with great regret to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, for it pained him to hear a Secretary for War, with an army such as ours, attempt to turn the minds of Members from the real question under consideration. No one whose duty it was to make daily visits round the messes of the soldiers could fail to believe that the person who improved the System of cooking in the army was entitled to the gratitude and reward of his country. Until Captain Grant's invention the soldiers in the army could get nothing but boiled meat every day of their lives unless they obtained it at their own expense. Yet no remuneration had been given to Captain Grant for his services and loss of time, and he was even a considerable sum out of pocket. The right hon. Baronet said the case had been closed by his predecessor; but the correspond- 668 ence continued for several months after the death of Lord Herbert, and reports had been published speaking in the highest terms of Captain Grant's apparatus. [Sir GEORGE LEWIS: That is, of the field apparatus.] With regard to the other, the case was never considered closed. With respect to the case having been settled by the opinion of "competent persons," all he could say was that the most ample testimony to the merits of Captain Grant's inventions had been given by officers who were well qualified to form a correct opinion, and who had had every opportunity of doing so. Captain Grant had been shabbily and improperly treated. The country, however much it wished to save money, could not wish Captain Grant to be a loser, and he hoped the House would be just enough to remunerate him.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
The cost out of pocket has been reimbursed to him.

COLONEL NORTH
said, that such reimbursement could not be called remuneration. It had been suggested to Captain Grant, by the Commission appointed by the Government, that he should make experiments in order that the results might be seen, and surely he ought to be remunerated for expense incurred by those experiments.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he did not suppose there was anything irregular in the Motion, or else the Speaker would have stopped the discussion. The question was, whether Captain Grant's inventions were successful or not. He treated with contempt the adverse opinions of Mr. Warriner and M. Guerrier; and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would consent to the proposition for the appointment of three or four proper persons to inspect and report upon Captain Grant's invention.

§ MR. MONSELL
felt bound to add his testimony to the services rendered by Captain Grant, who had for six or seven years bestowed his attention upon the subject, and had conferred great benefit upon the service by doing so. His exertions had resulted in considerable economy to the public service and increased comfort to the men. The food of the men used to be badly cooked; and with the improvements that had been effected in the cooking of it, there had been a diminution in the cost. Was a gentleman to devote six or seven years' attention to such a subject, with such results, and to receive no remuneration? He never saw a more reason- 669 able man than Captain Grant, who, he was persuaded, would be easily satisfied.

§ GENERAL BUCKLEY
thought that Captain Grant had not received the remuneration to which he was entitled, and that his apparatus, if properly carried out, would be very beneficial to the service.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
, in explanation, said, he had distinguished between Captain Grant's two inventions, one of which was intended for use in barracks and the other for use in the field. As to the first, the War Office were in possession of very ample information, and were not likely to be assisted by the appointment of any new Committee. The field apparatus was now under the consideration of a Committee of persons appointed by the Government.

GENERAL LINDSAY
, in reply, stated, that it was upon the barrack apparatus that Captain Grant had given his whole time to the benefit and improvement of the service, and that consequently the remuneration, whatever it might be, should be for that, and not for the field apparatus.