§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, it would be in the recollection of Members of the House that the right hon. Gentleman now Secretary of State for War, and then at the head of die Admiralty (Sir John Pakington), made a statement in answer to a question put to him that on his accession to office he had not found the reserves of ships in time state in which he had a right to expect them. There was no quali- 208 fication in that statement as to the class of vessels. It was accepted by the public as referring generally to the state of the navy and to all classes of ships, and there resulted a series of attacks in the press upon the administration of the late Board. The statement further alarmed not only those who were prone to panics about the state of the navy, but those who dreaded another re-construction of the navy similar to that inaugurated in 1859 by the right hon. Gentleman. At the commencement of this Session, the Duke of Somerset addressed himself to this subject in "another place," and defended the condition in which he had left the navy. The noble Earl at the head of the Government (the Earl of Derby) answered him, and produced in justification of his Colleague an extract from a memorandum by Sir Frederick Grey, which had been found among papers left at the Admiralty, and on the faith of which he said the right hon. Gentleman had made his answer in this House. Sir Frederick Grey was very much dissatisfied with the use made of his name, and of some casual remarks of his in a memorandum upon the policy of building some paddle-wheel steamers, and had asked him to move for a Return of the memorandum. Finding, however, that it would be contrary to the forms of the House to move for a paper which had been quoted in "another place," he (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) contented himself with making a general denial on behalf of Sir Frederick Grey, in the course of the debate on the state of the dockyards, and there the matter would have rested. But in the course of the very able and clear statement made by the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty (Lord Henry Lennox), on bringing in the Estimates, the memorandum was again quoted. Sir Frederick Grey now wished that his memorandum and the submission of the Controller, to which it was an answer, should be laid before the House, so that it might be seen how little ground existed for quoting him in justification of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman. The memorandum was written in February of last year, before the Estimates were brought in. It had reference solely to a proposal to build a paddle-wheel steamer, on the merits of which there was some difference of opinion. Sir Frederick Grey contended that in no wise could it be used in support of the general statement made last Session, or in any way as justifying the charges against the late Board. There never was 209 any difference of opinion between himself and the Duke of Somerset as regarded the policy of building ships, or the condition in which the navy was at any time, and he said that any attempt to quote him as an authority for statements of such a nature was entirely unwarranted.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That there be laid before this House, a Copy of a Submission of the Comptroller of the Navy to the Board of Admiralty, and a Memorandum thereon by Admiral Sir Frederick Grey, on the building of Paddle-wheel Steamers, dated 1866,"—(Mr. Shaw-Lefevre.)
LORD HENRY LENNONsaid, he felt compelled to resist the application. The memorandum was attached to confidential communications between the Controller and the Board of Admiralty on questions of public policy and referring to other matters. It would be extremely inconvenient for the public service that these papers should be produced. That was his only reason for resisting the Motion. Both in the debates in that House and in "another place" ample justice had been done to the Duke of Somerset and the late Board of Admiralty.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was the universal rule that when a document was quoted by a Minister of the Crown the Government were bound to lay it on the table of the House. He should not press for any document the production of which was declared to be injurious to the public service; but he could not help expressing his surprise that in both Houses of Parliament a document should have been used in debate which it was now declared could not be produced.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he feared he had not made himself understood. The memorandum was only a short one, but it was attached to correspondence of considerable length relating to matters of public policy which it was not desirable to produce, but without which it would be scarcely intelligible.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that if that were the case the document should not have been quoted. Towards the end of last Session it was said that the present Board of Admiralty found the reserve in a state in which they did not expect to see it. That statement was challenged in "another place;" and in reply a minute of Sir Frederick Grey was quoted, which should not have been done if the document could not be produced without injury to the public 210 service. Sir Frederick Grey was put in an unfair position by its non-production.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, there was no objection to produce Sir Frederick Grey's memorial itself if it were desired. It had already appeared in print. But the confidential communications contained in the Controller's submission it would be extremely undesirable to lay before the House.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he had no wish for the memorial without the submission of the Controller to which it formed an answer. On Sir Frederick Grey's part he entirely repudiated the construction which had been put upon that document.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.