BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. (Hansard, 26 February 1863)

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
I wish to make an appeal to my hon. and gal- 799 lant Friend—[Cries of Order! amid which the noble Lord resumed his seat.]

§ MR. SPEAKER
Does the hon. and gallant Member give way?

SIR FREDERIC SMITH
I am quite ready to go on. I have no feeling but that of doing my duty as a Member and upholding the dignity of the House. The noble Lord was getting up to make some statement in reference to the breach of privilege of which I complain; and if the noble Lord is prepared to make an apology on the part of the party offending to the House, and to me, I am the last man to stand in. the way, so long as my honour and the honour of the House are safe. It is in the recollection of the House that we had a debate two nights ago on the subject of the Naval Estimates, and that in the performance of my duty I then made some comments on an appointment by the Board of Admiralty which appeared to me to be open to grave question. I thought that in making those remarks I had guarded myself against saying anything unkind or ungenerous. I asked whether or not the gentleman who was appointed Chief Constructor of the Navy had ever built a ship; and I said, that if not, the appointment was, in my estimation, a very dangerous and improper one, because the Constructor of the Navy will have the control of all the dockyards in the service, and if he be incompetent to teach those whom he has to direct, all discipline will fall to the ground. I stated, also in correction of my noble Friend (Lord C. Paget), that the gentleman in question had really not been a member of the College of Naval Architecture. At first I believed he had, because there was a Mr. Reed who was a member of that College, with Mr. Chatfield and Mr. Creuze, and when Mr. Reed was appointed I believed him to be that person. It is now certain that he is not that person, but that he was brought up as an apprentice, at first at Sheerness, then at Portsmouth, and also, but of this I am not quite sure, at Chatham. He was, however, a mere apprentice. I am glad to find a person in that position raising himself up. I myself have risen in the service and in position, and no one is more glad than I am to see others do so. However, this gentleman, as I have said, had really been merely an apprentice of the working class, and was at the School of Mathematics at Portsmouth. There he 800 acquired a knowledge of mathematics. He is a very talented man, I have not the least doubt, but he never was a member of the College of Naval Architecture, and he never had, so far as I am aware, a knowledge of naval architecture, fitting him for the prominent post which he now occupies. As a Member of Parliament, I think I had a fair right to criticise the appointment. I am sure I would not do it invidiously. I should be the last man to bear hardly on him; and if he had been appointed to a junior office, with a prospect of rising to a higher position, no objection would have been made. But to place him at once at the head of all the constructors of the navy I think is hardly fitting. These are the statements I made. I have since read the report of my speech in all the leading journals, and I can find nothing that goes beyond what I have described. I also said I did not believe Mr. Reed had acquired that amount of practical experience which would enable him to discharge his duties with advantage to the country. Under these circumstances I was never more astonished in my life than when I received yesterday morning a letter from Mr. Reed, whom I never saw, and of whom I know nothing except in his public character. That letter is as follows:— 10, Glen Mohr Terrace, Greenwich, February 24. Sir,—In the House of Commons last evening I heard you deny that I had belonged to the Admiralty School of Naval Architecture, which, though true verbally, inasmuch as the school was entitled 'School of Mathematics and Naval Construction,' is calculated to convey a most false impression, inasmuch as the school in question was, in fact, a school of naval architecture, inferior in no respect to that which bore the name previously. Further, I heard you state that I was without a proper knowledge of my profession; in fact, that 'I knew nothing about the matter.' Now, I call upon you to say why you made this false and libellous statement concerning me in your place in Parliament, and on what grounds you justify, or attempt to justify, it. I beg to assure you that I have not sought the appointment which the Admiralty have given to me, and I think you are bound, if you feel called upon to put forward the claims of a constituent of yours as superior to mine, to do so without subjecting me to personal abuse in a place where I can have no opportunity of answering you. I am Sir, yours very truly, E. J. REED. To Sir Frederie Smith, M.P. Now, first of all, it is quite clear he alludes to Mr. Lang. I believe no person knowing Mr. Lang can doubt that 801 he is the best naval architect you have, perhaps the best in the world. But Mr. Lang is not, and never was, a constituent of mine. Mr. Lang never was and never will be, on the register of voters for the borough of Chatham. I trust the House will feel with me that a Member of Parliament ought not to be subject to attacks of this kind in the performance of a simple duty. I can assure the House, and Mr. Reed, that I have no ill-will whatever against him. I should be glad to see him rise in the profession, and if he is appointed by the Government, I hope he will succeed and be useful to the service. But if we are to be deterred in the performance of our duties in a matter of this kind, the House of Commons will be degraded. I, for one, cannot stand under the stigma of having used false and libellous words, when the exact expressions attributed to me by this gentleman never passed my lips. I can find no trace of them; but if I did not use them, then I am ready to do so now, therefore Mr. Reed will get nothing by his letter. I now say, what I said before, that if Mr. Reed has never constructed a ship his appointment is improper, because I believe he cannot be competent practically to carry out the business of the dockyards. I was about to move that Mr. Reed be called to the Bar. But my noble Friend has proposed that I should take no steps in the matter until I had waited for an apology, which the noble Lord says has been written. [Cries of Move!] If such an apology has been written, no doubt that will be satisfactory. [Renewed cries of Move!] If such be the wish of the House, I will move that Mr. Reed be called to the Bar.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member having brought under consideration a document which he considers a breach of privilege, will be so good as to bring it to the table.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
Sir, I do not think it is usual to make a Motion to call a gentleman to the Bar until the House has first decided that the document amounts to a breach of privilege. I express no opinion upon this point myself, but I think the first Motion should be that the document is a breach of privilege.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH
I beg to move that the document is a breach of the privileges of this House.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
Sir, no one can, I presume, dispute, that a dis- 802 tinct breach of privilege has been committed, and that the letter was a most improper one. But my hon. and gallant Friend, before he brought the subject under consideration, was good enough to show me the letter, and also to state, that if I could get up and assure the House that Mr. Reed would be prepared to make a proper and ample apology, he would not push the matter further. My object in rising, a while ago, was to induce my hon. and gallant Friend to put off the matter until I should see Mr. Reed, and procure a suitable apology for such improper conduct. ["No, no!"] I again appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
Sir, the attack, such as it is, has been made upon this House, and the apology, if any, ought to be made at the Bar of this House.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH
I now move that Mr. Reed be called to the Bar of the House on to-morrow.