HC Deb 22 March 1861 vol 162 cc235-47
LORD ELCHO

Sir, the House will probably be of opinion that it has had enough of Sir Baldwin Walker. ("Hear!") I was fully prepared for a responsive cheer to that sentiment; but I hope the House will allow me a moment to explain the reasons which induced me to put on the paper another question relative to this subject. I have no personal motive whatever in putting this question. Sitting below the gangway I do not feel any deep interest in showing the faults of the present Board of Admiralty, nor have I any reason for showing that they are faultless. I have no personal interest in the question; for, although I have the pleasure of the acquaintance of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, I am not one of his intimate personal friends. But I do feel an interest in this question, which I am sure every Member must feel, as it affects the character and credit of our public men. An impression has gone abroad, whether rightly or wrongly, that an attempt has been made on the part of the authorities of the Admiralty to evade a promise made by the First Lord of the Treasury with reference to the detention of Sir Baldwin Walker—an impression which I do not think is advantageous to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty. I believe, from circumstances which have recently come to my knowledge, and which I believe to be accurate, that that impression is unjust as regards the course pursued by the noble Lord; and, therefore, I thought it my duty to put this question on the paper. I have had no communication with the noble Lord on the subject. I placed the question on the paper without his knowledge, and no conversation or allusion has passed between us on the matter. The circumstances as to this unfortunate affairs as related to me appears to be this—that immediately after the promise made by the First Lord of the Treasury that Sir Baldwin Walker should be detained, the Secretary of the Admiralty wrote two telegraphic messages, which it was intended should be immediately forwarded to the Admirals at Portsmouth and Plymouth to detain Sir Baldwin Walker. That intention, however, of the noble Lord was overruled through the intervention of one of the Naval Lords of the Admiralty. The question as to whether these messages should be forwarded that night was referred to the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty. Unfortunately, however, that noble Duke is reported to have retired early to rest that evening. He was supposed to be dreaming of the destruction of the iron fleet of France by the wooden fleet of England; and it was not thought desirable by those who watch over the slumbers of that noble Duke to awake him on that occasion. Being unable, therefore, to communicate with the First Lord, communication was held with the First Naval Lord. What has been stated very recently in "another place," by the First Lord of the Admiralty explains the view taken by the first Naval Lord on this question. But although that explanation has been given in "another place," I put this notice on the paper to enable the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he should feel desirable, to give any further explanation on the subject. I, therefore, beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in fulfilment of the promise made by the First Lord of the Treasury, that Sir Baldwin Walker should be detained to enable him to appear before Admiral Duncombe's Committee, he immediately wrote two telegraphic messages, the one to the Admiral at Portsmouth, the other to the Admiral at Plymouth, desiring them to take all possible means to overtake or intercept Sir Baldwin Walker; whether the cause of these messages not being immediately forwarded by telegraph arose from circumstances over which he had no control, and whether he would state those circumstances to the House; also whether any instructions were sent through Admiral Bruce, or through any person, to Sir Baldwin Walker, desiring him to go to sea immediately, and not to allow himself to be caught

MR. BUTLER JOHNSTONE

said, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what number of Boys are on board the Training Ship Britannia, at Portsmouth, if it is true that there is considerable sickness on board from overcrowding; and if it is true that the sewers of Gosport are discharged into the Harbour in the vicinity of where the Britannia is moored?

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, it was due to a gallant Admiral now on foreign service (Sir Baldwin Walker) to state that he had already been examined for three days before a Commission on which he (Sir Henry Willoughby) had sat, and that he had given his evidence in a full, free, and straighforward manner which showed that he had nothing to conceal.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

In answer to the question relative to the cadets of the Britannia, it is, I admit, impossible to overrate the importance of a healthy situation for the education of these youths, who are, I trust, to be the future Nelsons of the navy. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the parents who may send their sons on board the Britannia that the Admiralty are continually inspecting her and receiving reports upon the state of the vessel, and upon the progress and health of the cadets. I believe that these young gentlemen since the establishment of this training vessel have been on the whole, very healthy. It is true that late last autumn a disease or diseases, in the shape of measles and fever, broke out on board. This occasioned great anxiety to the Admiralty, and it was a question at one time whether it would not be necessary to break up the establishment altogether. An inquiry was instituted, with a view of discovering, if possible, the origin of the sickness that had occurred, but it was never made out that it was due to the drains in the neighbourhood. The Britannia lies at a considerable distance from the shore, and I cannot think that the breaking out of these maladies was due to the effluvium from the drains. It is true that a great number of these youths were taken ill. At one time there were 38 cadets, out of 200, who had measles and fever; but the health of the cadets has since gradually improved. The best proof that there is nothing against the Britannia as a healthy vessel is that at this moment there are but two cadets on the sick-list, who are ill of catarrh. In the hospital there are three cadets—one ill of fever, another of measles, and a third of catarrh. That is the whole number of sick cases out of 204 cadets now on board. The parents of these children have, therefore, no occasion for alarm.

I now turn to the question of the noble Lord with regard to the supposed abduction of Sir Baldwin Walker by the Admiralty. I should have been contented to rest under the stigma cast upon me by two or three Gentlemen in this House. I think that the hon. Member for Portsmouth stated—and really I almost dreamt I was the First Lord of the Admiralty, he seemed to consider me so powerful—that I had ordered Sir Baldwin Walker to proceed to sea, "blow high, blow low; "that I had risked the lives not only of himself and of his wife and children, who were on board, but also of his ship's company; and that I forced him to sea with the view of getting rid of his evidence before the Admiralty Committee. That was one accusation. Then the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John Pakiugton) accuses me of neglecting to send a telegram when my noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury stated to the House that he would give immediate orders that a vessel should be sent to intercept Sir Baldwin Walker. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that I had gone home, taking no notice whatever of the wishes of the House; that I had only at half-past eleven next day communicated with my colleagues, and that then a wretched small vessel was sent after him. I should have been perfectly satisfied to rest under the indignation of the right hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, for it did not give me much uneasiness. I knew I had acted as it was my duty to act during the whole of these proceedings, and, therefore, I took no notice of these insinuations. So the matter would have rested, and I should have taken no notice of it if it had not been that unfortunately two gallant brother officers were joined with me in this dreadful conspiracy. First of all, with regard to the abduction of Sir Baldwin Walker, a gallant officer, the Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, wrote to me, after reading a leading article in a paper, the name of which I need not mention, but which we know is conducted by a very able and distinguished gentleman. This paper stated at the conclusion of its article that it would recommend the Committee to ask the Port Admiral at Portsmouth whether anything did pas3 on this subject—that is, whether the Port Admiral had been sent out with orders to Sir Baldwin Walker to proceed to sea, blow high or blow low. Now, the Admiral at Portsmouth did not bear his stripes so easily as I do mine. He thought that this was a reflection on his honour, and this is the letter he wrote to me. It is from Admiral Bruce, the Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth:— Admiralty House, Portsmouth, March 8, 1861. My Dear Lord Clarence,—The Times of today says that I ought to be questioned respecting a parting communication (said to have been) held with Sir Baldwin Walker. The fact is, that I did detain the ship about an hour to put on board her some ordnance stores, without which her Armstrong gun would have been useless, and which Captain Caffin came to me about. The Narcissus being steaming away at the time, and the stores having been sent out in a sailing hoy from the gunwharf, they would not otherwise have reached the ship. I went out myself to see that there was no unnecessary delay, but I did not want to see the Admiral, nor did I see him, as he had gone to Osborne to wait upon the Queen. So—like Canning's needy knife-grinder—'Story! Lord bless you, I have none to tell, Sir.' " I trust this will answer the question of the noble Lord as to "whether any instructions were sent through Admiral Bruce, or through any other person, to Sir Baldwin Walker, desiring him to go to sea immediately, and not to allow himself to be caught." With regard to this matter, it appears to have been stated by a noble Lord in "another place," that at table, in a post-prandial communication—after, as we sailors should say, they had "piped to grog" T—some one declared that he positively knew of his own knowledge that Admiral Bruce or some other person had been sent out to hasten Sir Baldwin Walker's departure. Sir, I feel almost ashamed to repeat, upon my honour, that neither the noble Duke nor myself, nor any one connected with the Admiralty, either publicly or privately communicated with Sir Baldwin Walker any desire that he should proceed to sea. The noble Duke has already stated, and I have also told you before, that Sir Baldwin Walker's orders were sent out to him on the morning of the 27th, the previous Wednesday. Sir Baldwin Walker's orders were made out on Tuesday, the 26th of February, and were delivered to him at the Admiralty on the morning of the 27th. He left London on Thursday, the 28th, and sailed from Portsmouth on Saturday, March 2nd, putting back to Yarmouth Roads on account of bad weather. I now pass to the other portion of the question put to me. The noble Lord asks, "whether, in fulfilment of the promise made by the First Lord of the Treasury that Sir Baldwin Walker should be detained to enable him to appear before Admiral Duncombe's Committee? I immediately wrote two telegraphic messages—the one to the Admiral at Portsmouth, the other to the Admiral at Plymouth, desiring them to take all possible means to overtake or intercept Sir Baldwin Walker." I should have had great pain answering that question, if it had been asked on any previous occasion; but I am relieved from such feeling by the handsome manner in which my noble Friend the Duke of Somerset, and, indeed, the whole Board of Admiralty have acted towards me. I will now read a letter which I have received from the Senior Naval Lord of the Admiralty, who has the whole management of the movements of Her Majesty's ships, and in which he explains the circumstances relating to these telegrams— Admiralty, March 22, 1861. Dear Lord Clarence,—I observe in the Notices of Motions in the House of Commons for today that there is notice, by Lord Elcho, Of questions to be put to yourself in reference to the two telegraphic messages sent ready written by you with a view to the recall of Sir Baldwin Walker. It is, I think, important to the Board, and it is of consequence to me, that the answers to be given should be clear and distinct, and I write this letter in order that there may be no misapprehension, and with the express wish that it may be read to the House. The two telegrams written and signed by yourself are still in my possession. They were left at my house on the night in question by Admiral Pelham, accompanied by a note from himself, stating the substance of what had passed in the House of Commons, which he had heard in the strangers' gallery; and he mentioned to me that he had left them in order that I might do as I thought right in the matter. I wish it to be understood that I had no hesitation in deciding that it would have been highly improper in me to have acted at all upon such information. The Commissioners for Executing the Office of Admiralty are the servants of the Crown, and I believe I am correct in thinking that the proceedings of the House of Commons cannot be officially known to them at all; and, if known, cannot be regarded in the light of orders for the distribution of the fleet, or the movements of particular ships. Such orders, when sent to the Admiralty, can come only by command of Her Majesty, and should be communicated by letter from the Secretary of State, or by similar established authority. No such authority was received by me, and, under all the circumstances of the moment, I considered that a most unsafe precedent might be established in practice if I had consented hastily to act in the manner contemplated by you. It will be apparent to everybody that you could give no orders upon your own authority. Very truly yours, R. S. DUNDAS. Rear Admiral the Lord Clarence Paget. All I can do is to state again that nothing would have induced me to go through these details had it not been the earnest wish of the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty and of Sir Richard Dundas that I should do so. I cannot conclude without stating my belief that there is not a better officer in the navy than Sir Richard Dundas, and that he acted on this occasion according to what he considered his duty towards the Admiralty.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

I must say I do not consider the explanation of the noble Lord at all satisfactory, and I desire to put another question, hut I wish to found that question on the only two points in this subject which I have ever regarded as being of a serious nature. I regard them as being serious, because they bear directly on the relations which do, and ought to, exist between the Ministers of the Crown and the House of Commons. Sir, I have never for a moment attached the slightest importance or credit to the rumour which has been floating about the town, and which my noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty has completely disposed of to-night, that Admiral Bruce on the morning that the Narcissus sailed, had taken out any instructions to Sir Baldwin Walker to hurry out to sea, and to keep well to the south of the Channel. But I must say that there are two points connected with the departure of Sir Baldwin Walker to which the House of Commons ought to give serious attention, for the reason I have stated. First, I entertain a strong opinion that after the Admiralty had consented to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, it was an act of great impropriety on the part of the Admiralty to allow, quite unnecessarily, the departure of one of the chief witnesses likely to be called upon to give evidence. I cannot for one moment admit the excuse of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, that he had applied to a Member of this House, who was about to move for that Committee (Admiral Duncombe), and had heard from that lion, and gallant Member that he thought Sir Baldwin Walker's evidence unnecessary. I say that there was no Member of this House who could without presumption pretend to say whether that Committee would require Sir Baldwin Walker's evidence or not. On the contrary, Sir Baldwin Walker had for fourteen years held one of the most important posts in the Admiralty 4 and it was a self-evident fact—at least it was a matter of strong probability—-that that Committee would require his evidence. Whether he proceeded to the Cape a week sooner or a week later no one could pretend to think a matter of the slightest importance, and I now repeat my opinion in the face of this House that it was a great impropriety on the part of the Admiralty, and an act of disrespect to this House to allow Sir Baldwin Walker to leave England, even if no opinion had been expressed in this House on the subject. The other point to which I wish to allude, and which has been touched upon by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire, is this:—It is indispensably necessary to the conduct of our proceedings in Parliament that everything like engagements or promises made to the House of Commons by the Ministers of the Crown should be faithfully and honourably carried out. I am sorry to say that in this case a promise was made by a Minister of the Crown, and that that promise was broken. ["Hear hear," and "No, no."] I beg the attention of the House while I touch upon this point, the gravity of which I entirely feel. I say, deliberately, a promise was here made by the Prime Minister, and that promise was broken, because due means have not been taken for its fulfilment. Sir, I greatly regret to hear what has been the conduct of a gentleman and an officer for whom I entertained the most sincere regard and esteem. I mean Sir Richard Dundas. I think Sir Richard Dundas, taking the statement we have heard read by the noble Lord as accurate, has committed a very serious error, in that Sir Richard Dundas knew perfectly well that, in order to fulfil the promise that was given, every moment was precious. Sir Richard Dundas has written that he was afraid he would be establishing a bad and dangerous precedent if he, as First Naval Lord of the Admiralty, consented to receive orders from the House of Commons. Why, Sir, surely a gentleman of his experience must have known that he could not take anything as an order from the House of Commons unless it came in the name of the Speaker of the House of Commons. But, Sir, the order conveyed to him was through a brother naval officer who had heard what passed, and who knew that a promise was given by a Minister of the Crown, that Minister being the Prime Minister. What was that promise? It was that "immediate steps" should be taken to detain Sir Baldwin Walker. I must do the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty the justice to say that the statement he has made to-night completely exonerates him, and proves that he did take immediate steps. I was under an erroneous impression, and was afraid he had disregarded the promise he made that "that very night" steps should be taken. The fault, therefore, consists in what I must hold to be the serious error of Sir Richard Dundas. If Sir Richard Dundas understood his duty his business clearly was not to neglect the matter for the whole of that night, but he should have taken immediate steps to ascertain upon what authority the communication which he received rested. But here the explanation of the noble Lord ends, and I beg the attention of the House to this important fact—that the noble Lord, in answering the inquiry of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), has confined himself to what took place on that night. Let me, however, call the attention of the House to what took place upon the following day. What was Sir Richard Duudas's reason for not sending the telegram to the Port Admirals until eight minutes before twelve on the following day? The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty has stated that that was the hour at which the first telegrams were sent to the Port Admirals. I have already said, and everybody must feel, that every moment was precious. Sir Baldwin Walker had sailed on the Monday morning, and the conversation took place in the House of Commons on Monday night, and if it was possible to fulfil the promise of the Prime Minister it was only by prompt and immediate action. Prompt and immediate action was not taken, and I blame Sir Richard Dundas for not taking the course he should have taken on the Monday night. But at eight minutes before twelve on Tuesday morning a telegram was sent to Portsmouth ordering to be sent out that which was notoriously the slowest ship in the port. My gallant friend Sir Houston Stewart, the Port Admiral, naturally thought that as a communication of that kind was sent from the Admiralty they were in earnest in wishing to stop Sir Baldwin Walker. He immediately telegraphed, and said, "Steam up in the fastest ship here—the Himalaya. "("No, no!") If I am wrong in fact. I am open to correction.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

The Himalaya was outside the harbour, but her cylinders were in such a bad state that she was unfit to go to sea. She was merely on trial with diseased cylinders.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

Was that the telegram? I thought the noble Lord was stating the opinion of the Admiralty rather than the contents of the Port Admiral's telegram. What was Sir Houston Stewart's telegraph? ("Order, order!") I am speaking from memory; but I believe that Sir Houston Stewart's telegram did not speak of the diseased cylinders of the Himalaya, and the noble Lord does not venture to tell me that it did. It was a case in which every moment was precious, and my recollection is that Sir Houston Stewart's telegram was that the "Himalaya is under steam—should she not go too?" The Admiralty was bound to accept the information sent by Sir Houston Stewart that the Himalaya was fit for sea, and that information they got the next morning, and the matter about her diseased cylinders was no answer to the information then. More than that there were the Jason and other fast ships in Portsmouth Harbour beside the Himalaya. If the Admiralty had wished to fulfil their promise they should have sent the telegram over night; at all events, they should have sent it early next morning, and ordered the fastest ship to go, instead of the slowest one. Sir Houston Stewart telegraphed, "Why should not the Himalaya go to sea?" and what did the Admiralty say, "Yes" or "No?" They did not do this; but they telegraphed back, "How is the weather?" and this when every moment was precious. I am sorry to have to relate such things, but are the facts before us, and these are the facts upon which the country is to form its opinion whether or not the Government did that which they were bound to do—take all reasonable steps to fulfil the promise which had been given to this House. I am sorry to say no such steps were taken, and that the Government must labour under the discredit of not endeavouring to fulfil the promise given to the House of Commons. Having recorded my strong opinion on this act of great impropriety in sending away a necessary witness, and having said also that any promise given to this House should be fully and faithfully redeemed, I desire to ask whether there is any truth in the report which I see in most of the London newspapers to the effect that the Admiralty have sent out directions to Sir Baldwin Walker to return from Ascension to this country

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, he should not have risen to make any observations if he had not been directly alluded to. In his observations on this subject he had accused the Admiralty, but not the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty, of not detaining Sir Baldwin Walker, because he (Sir James Elphinstone) knew that the noble Lord's power at the Board was not sufficient to make him responsible for anything of the sort. It was necessary to look back a little to understand the circumstances of the case. This Committee on the Admiralty should have been appointed on the first day of the Session, or immediately afterwards; but it was not, in fact, appointed until his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich put his notice on the paper, when he was informed that he was taking the wind out of another hon. Gentleman's sails. They had all forgotten that the hon. and gallant Member for the East Riding (Admiral Duncombe) had mentioned his intention of bringing this matter before the House when the right hon. Baronet gave his notice. There was a belief, in which he (Sir James Elphinstone) shared, that it was the intention of the Admiralty not to appoint this Committee until Sir Baldwin Walker was well out of the country. It was clear to him that if this Committee was intended to inquire bond fide it was impossible to go on without Sir Baldwin Walker; from what he had seen of his evidence before the Commission upon dockyards it was perfectly clear that his high character and his position made him the witness upon whose evidence the Report would most probably turn; and he (Sir James Elphinstone) could not see how it was possible that they could substitute the evidence before the Commission for the viva voce evidence of Sir Baldwin Walker before the Committee. He supposed that as the Committee had power to send for persons and papers, they would sooner or later send for Sir Baldwin Walker. There was no doubt that the cylinders of the Himalaya turned out to be in such a state that she was not fit for any long voyage; but Sir Houston Stewart would never have telegraphed "Why not send the Himalaya?" if he had not thought that her cylinders were perfectly fit for a short journey such as, he thought, would have been sufficient to catch the Narcissus. As to the ship Britannia, he believed that that ship was overcrowded; and that she was liable to be unhealthy in the summer, for there was no doubt that the sewers of Gosport were emptied out upon that mud-flat, and the ship was so close to the shore that at low water you might throw a biscuit on shore. There should, in his opinion, be a college, instead of a ship, for the purpose.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

Sir, I was in hopes that this stock piece, "Sir Bald- win Walker," which has had an uninterrupted run for so many nights would at length have been withdrawn from the boards; but the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich has been so successful in performing his part that he seems determined to make an Easter-piece of the entertainment. I am really sorry that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty has condescended to go into the details which he has given to the House this evening; because I think that for every one who knows him his simple denial would have been sufficient. No one could ever have believed that a thing had been done when he told the House that it had not. I cannot understand how any one but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich—who is so singularly fussy when anything relating to the Admiralty is before the House—could attack the noble Lord; but not satisfied with that the right hon. Gentleman has to-night gone out of bis way to attack another gallant officer, Sir Richard Dundas, who he ought, from his official experience, to know is incapable of saying anything that is not strictly accurate. I regard this as a sort of monomania with which the right hon. Gentleman is afflicted. The ailment seems to affect his memory, for whenever Sir Baldwin Walker is mentioned he gets up and over and over again makes the same speech, in the course of which we are sure to have the Avon and the Jason and the cylinders of the Himalaya. We are now going to adjourn for the Easter holydays, and he makes this, I suppose, as his last speech. I shall now offer a recommendation. The right hon. Gentleman is very anxious to get hold of Sir Baldwin Walker, and thinks that his evidence will be of great value, as no doubt it will. I see from the Report of the evidence before the Dockyard Commission that he has been asked a thousand questions, and has given a thousand answers. And, by-the-way, as that Commission has reported that the Admiralty ought to be reconstructed, why this Committee should sic I am at a loss to understand. Well, the right hon. Gentleman wants to get hold of Sir Baldwin Walker, and I think it would be a relief to the House if we sent out a Commission to the Cape to examine him, composed of the right hon. Baronet himself, his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Christ church (Admiral Walcott), and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth. I see no other way of getting the Sir Baldwin Walker case out of this House. The right hon. Baronet will have a pleasant trip; he will, no doubt, acquire a great deal of useful information; and the House will be rid of Sir Baldwin Walker.