ORDNANCE ESTIMATES—MR. FOOT.

HC Deb 23 March 1840 vol 52 cc1354-9

Mr. Bernal

brought up the Report of the Committee on the Ordnance Estimates.

Sir John Yarde Buller

understood that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir H. Vivian) had some further explanation to make with respect to the dismissal of Mr. Foot. He had no further question to ask, but he would be glad to hear any further explanation.

Sir H. Vivian

was obliged to the hon. Baronet for the opportunity, but he had no wish to make any statement, because there was no necessity. The other night, when the hon. Baronet complained of the improper dismissal of Mr. Foot, his gallant Friend near him (Colonel Anson) had said he would inquire about it, but he repeated what he had said the other evening,that the Ordnance department had nothing to do with the appointment of Messrs. Foot, who were only the agents of the solicitor. In consequence, however, of what passed, he did ask Mr. Hignett the reason of the change; Mr. Hignett stated the reason to him, and he had asked that gentleman to reduce his statement to writing. That statement he would now take the liberty of reading to the House:— Office of Ordnance, 23rd March, 1840. Sir—In obedience to your order, calling upon me for an explanation of the reasons which induced me to employ a law agent at Devonport, in the room of Mr. Foot, who acted in that capacity many years for Mr. James Smith, my predecessor in office, I have the honour to state that upon the death of the latter, on the 24th of December last, all the law agencies, according to the rule of the Solicitor's-office, terminated. Upon my appointment by you on the 26th of that month, I alone became responsible to you and the board for the due performance of the duties of the office; and I, therefore, considered that I had a right to employ agents from amongst my own professional friends and acquaintance, wheresoever the business of the department might render it necessary, and without being required by the agents of my predecessor to assign any reason for so doing. I accordingly, very soon after my appointment by you, employed new agents at several Ordnance stations, including Devonport, and Mr. Foot is the only gentleman who has thought fit to make any complaint to me on the subject. It appeared that fresh agents were appointed in three different places: one in Liverpool, another in Birmingham, and a third he did not recollect where. But Mr. Hignett continued— He has also caused a letter to be inserted in a provincial newspaper (which has been transferred to the columns of the daily London journals), in which he alleges that he has, during a period of fifty-five years, acted as the confidential agent of the Board of Ordnance and of the Ordnance solicitor, and that he has been removed from the agency solely on the ground of his having voted at the recent election in favour of a gentleman who is opposed to the Government. That Mr. Foot should have imagined this to have been the cause of his removal I can easily suppose, seeing the very strong part which was taken by him and his son at the election both of whom were members of Mr. Dawson's committee, and actually in a placard pledged their professional time gratuitously to that gentleman. In reply, however, to Mr. Foot's allegations, I beg to state that that gentleman has entirely misunderstood the nature of his own position, as well as my motives for employing a new agent: for, in the first place, he never was the confidential agent of the Board, who have no such law agent at any station. His engagement was merely a personal affair between himself and the solicitor, who might with perfect propriety and regularity have terminated the agency at any moment, and who, upon a recent occasion, actually contemplated trans- ferring the business to Mr. Eastlake, of Plymouth. Mr. Foot was first employed in that capacity (not by the Board, but) by Mr. Robert Smith, the late solicitor's father, about the period stated in his before-mentioned letter, and he continued to act for those gentlemen successively until the death of the son. In the next place, I can assure you that the election for Devonport had nothing to do with my selection of a new law agent at that station, because I had decided upon that step previously to the 1st of January last; and I will add, that not having the honour of being personally acquainted with Messrs. Foot, I had no knowledge of their politics, or of the part they meant to take in the subsequent election. From my long experience in the law business of the department as agent of the late solicitor, I am enabled positively to stale that the Board never interfered in the employment or change of the country agents, nor ever recognised those gentlemen in any capacity. I also know that the same rule is observed by the Lords of the Admiralty, and I believe by all the other public boards. This was proved a few years ago, when upon the occasion of the death of Mr. Moses Greetham, the agent of the Admiralty solicitor at Portsmouth, on application to that Board to sanction the appointment of Mr. Minchin as his successor, and Sir James Graham, the then First Lord, declined to interfere in the matter, on the ground that the responsible duty of selecting and employing proper law agents rested solely with the solicitor.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your faithful and most obedient servant, J. HIGNETT, Solicitor. The Right Hon. Sir Hussey Vivian, Bart., Master-general of the Ordnance, &c. He thought that this letter would prove that the Ordnance Board had nothing to do with the appointment. He had, however, searched the records of the office, and he had found that the solicitor had never applied to the Ordnance Department at the time of appointment, or when there was any change. That Mr. Foot never considered himself the law agent of the Ordnance Department was clear, from this fact, that Mr. Foot, whose respectability was well known to him, was too much of a gentleman to have put his name to such a document as he would now read, if he had been the agent of the Ordnance Board: The Right Honourable G. R. Dawson's Election. We, the undersigned attornies, resident in the borough of Devonport, and township of East Stonehouse, have this day met, in consequence of the announcement of the right hon. George Robert Dawson, that he is a candidate for the representation of this borough in Par- liament, and having formed ourselves into a professional committee, have unanimously agreed to give our united gratuitous services to the right lion. Gentleman throughout his contest. Devonport, November 21,1839. Signed, amongst others, by "William Foot," and "Josias Foot. What would have been said if they bad put their names to a similar document for Mr. Tuffnell? Would it not have been said, that if they were the agents of the board, the board was directly interfering? He asserted again, therefore, that the Ordnance Department bad nothing to do with the course that had been taken. It had been stated that Captain Dundas had gone down to Devonport for the purpose of the election. This, however, was not the fact. Captain Dundas went there by his (Sir H. Vivian's) especial orders, on account of some property that was about to be sold. He wrote from Cornwall to tell Captain Dundas to meet him at Devonport on the 6th of January, as he wished to consult with him. He arrived in the evening, and he left the next morning. He saw the candidate, it was true, and the other person he saw was his friend, Mr. Dawson, who got out of bed to shake hands with him. Captain Dundas remained, and went to consult Mr. Foot, who knew the property, as to the proper value, and to ascertain some other particulars, but he had the Captain's authority for saying, that he did not canvass Mr. Foot. He said, that he hoped Mr. Foot would not oppose their friend, and his reply was, that he was one of Mr. Dawson's committee. Then the case of Underwood had been mentioned, and it was said that he was removed in consequence of his vote for Mr. Dawson. That was done, however, at the request of the officer at Woolwich, Captain Sowerby, who, reporting the serious illness of a man of the Ebenezer, submitted that Underwood should be appointed. Why, if these complaints were to be made on such grounds, they would be obliged very soon to ask whether any relation had voted for any gentleman on the other side of the House before they could send an Ordnance hoy to sea. And with respect to the whole of the Ordnance voters at Devonport, he must say again, that a clerk of the Ordnance, at Devonport, who had voted a plumper against the Master-General of the Ordnance, that same man afterwards went round the wharf with him, and he (Sir H. Vivian) especially desired that no mention should be made of that vote. There were eight Ordnance voters in Devonport, and of these four had voted for Mr. Dawson and four for Mr. Tuffnell; this was, as he thought, a pretty equal division; and he would sit down with declaring, what he firmly and sincerely believed, that there never had been an instance in which the Ordnance department had interfered improperly or irregularly.

Sir J. Y. Buller

said, as far as regarded the right hon. and gallant Baronet himself, the explanation was sufficiently satisfactory, but it could not be denied that Mr. Foot had good grounds for complaint. Mr. Hignett, though he had been doing business for Mr. Smith during the illness of the latter, had given Mr. Foot no intimation of the intention with respect to him. The first intimation which Mr. Foot received was from a report in a newspaper, stating that he was to be removed, and another appointed in his room. On applying to the editor of the paper to know the source of the information, he was told it was a mere rumour, which turned out to be unfounded, and the editor expressed his regret at its insertion. This was the first intimation which Mr. Foot had until the appointment was given to another, and under these circumstances he had reason to complain both of the manner in which the transference had taken place, and of Mr. Hignett not having replied to his letter. He would read to the House a letter from Mr. Foot, stating the fact which preceded his removal. Here the hon. Baronet read the letter, in which the writer stated, that on the 7th of January, 1840, Captain W. Dundas was introduced to him to confer about the sale of some land belonging to the Ordnance, and to procure information respecting it. That business being over, Captain Dundas turned the conversation to the subject of the election, and asked him whether he would assist Mr. Tuffnell. He replied, that being old and in ill health, he now took no part in these transactions. Capt. Dundas then said, "But there is your son, will he vote?" Upon which Mr. Foot replied, that his son was one of Mr. Dawson's committee. Captain Dundas then left, saying, that he was staying at the dockyard, where Mr. Foot could send for him if he wanted to see him. In the letter which Mr. Foot wrote to Mr. Hignett, after stating the rumour in the paper and the other facts connected with his dismissal, he concluded by taking the liberty of asking for what fault confidence was withdrawn from one who had so long and so faithfully performed the duties which had been intrusted to his charge. Now, whether Mr. Foot was or was not displaced in consequence of the way in which Mr. Foot had voted, he must say that Mr. Foot had good cause of complaint in having had no answer nor explanation, after having written to Mr. Hignett so long ago as the 23rd of February. There was another point from which it would appear that Mr. Foot considered himself a confidential servant, which was, that having received a letter from the Master-general of the Ordnance, marked private, he did not consider himself at liberty to use it. The circumstances of the case were very suspicious. On the 7th of January the Clerk of the Ordnance talked with Mr. Foot on business connected with the Ordnance. The death of Mr. Smith, which preceded this, did not put an end to the connexion, but shortly after the election the dismissal took, place.

Sir H. Vivian

could only again repeat, that he knew nothing of the appointment of Mr. Oram; and as to the letter which he wrote to Mr. Foot, he had not the slightest objection to its being read. With respect to Mr. Hignett not having answered the letter of Mr. Foot, he had inquired into the matter, and it arose from Mr. Hignett having been engaged at an Ordnance trial at Winchester.

Mr. Shaw

wished to make one observation in regard to the Military Academy. Some charge had been made against the Ordnance on this subject, and in the debate which had taken place in regard to the matter he had been referred to. He therefore felt it to be his duty to state, that he did not believe the appointment of cadets to that institution was in the least degree influenced by political considerations.

Report agreed to.