§ MR. BIGGARasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Why the Petition presented to the Right honourable Sir John Somerset Pakington (now Lord Hampton) about the 26th of November 1866 by the Right honourable Colonel John Wilson Patten (now Lord Winmarleigh), of Mr. John Clare, the inventor and patentee of the metal shipbuilding of the State Navy, and the plaintiff in "Clare v. The Queen," has not been acted upon, though repeated applications have been made to the Admiralty; and, whether he has any objection to lay the said Document, and Lord Winmarleigh's Note that accompanied it, upon the Table of the House?
§ MR. A. F. EGERTON,in reply, said, that the case of Mr. Clare had been carefully considered by successive Boards of Admiralty. Mr. Clare had also endeavoured to enforce his claims in the Courts of Law. Under those circumstances, he was not prepared to lay on the Table of the House the Petition presented to the Admiralty by Mr. Clare, because it could not be found. Besides that, it was not desirable to reopen a matter that had already been decided upon.
§ MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he would state why he withheld from Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen, after having written of Mr. John Clare's claims in the terms of the following note,—
Eccle Riggs, Broughton in Furness, "Novr. 6, 1872.Dear Sir,The Memorial you send states many facts which are not within my knowledge, but I do think that, as stated in paragraph nineteen, you have contributed to the present system of construction of vessels of war, and I wish that some compensation could be granted to you whatever may have been your strict legal rights.R. Assheton Cross.Mr. John Clare.the Petition of Mr. John Clare, the inventor and patentee of the metal shipbuilding of the State Navy, and plaintiff in "Clare v. The Queen," specially addressed "To Her Most Gracious Majesty Vic- 495 toria, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland," sent into him at the Home Office 3rd March 1874, as the official medium between Sovereign and subject; and, why he placed the case of Mr. Clare before the Law Officers, Sir Richard Baggallay and Sir John Holker, when his case and claims on the Admiralty were solely scientific and mechanical, and not legal questions?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that Sir George Grey, when Secretary of State for the Home Department, had considered Mr. Clare's case, and answered a Question similar to that put to him by the hon. Member. He had himself already made a statement to the House on the subject, and it was not his intention to repeat it. He might say that he had been persecuted by the infliction of letters on this subject, greater than had befallen any other Member of the Government or of that House. When he took office he referred the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown, to see if any point favourable to Mr. Clare had been overlooked. Their answer was to the same effect as those given by the Law Officers of the previous Government, and he hoped he should hear no more on this subject.