§ MR. FERRAND,pursuant to notice, rose to put Questions to the Secretary to the Admiralty, on the present Controller of the Navy having appeared in the uniform of his rank when Captain of the Steam Reserve at the Devonport Election in 1859, and taking an active part in its proceedings. Ten days ago the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) brought under the notice of the House the Report of the Royal Commissioners appointed in the year 1861, to inquire into the Dockyards. On that occasion I took the liberty of calling attention to what I described as Whig tyranny and political interference in Devonport on the part of the Admiralty by the late and present Controller of the Navy. The charges I made were clear and distinct—there could be no mistake about them — and I made them in the presence of the Secretary and junior Lord of the Admiralty. Neither of those honourable officials thought it their duty to contradict any statement I made on that occasion. They both held their peace, and from that time to this day the charges that I made have never been contradicted. I was astonished at the silence of the Secretary of the Admiralty and of the junior Lord; and, for the purpose of obtaining from them some distinct confirmation or denial of the statement which I made, I placed on the paper of the House a notice intimating my intention to put some Questions to the Secretary of the Admiralty. After I had placed that notice on the paper, I was told by an hon. and gallant Friend of mine (Sir John Hay) that he intended to read a denial to the House of some of the statements which I had made. That being the case, instead of putting the Questions I at first intended, I thought it necessary to alter my notice, and to intimate my intention, upon the Question of going into Supply, of asking the indulgence of the House whilst submitting certain questions, and of making a further statement in reference to that intended to be made by my hon. and gallant Friend. Since I received that information 1393 from my hon. and gallant Friend, I have looked into the proceedings which have taken place in what I may call the persecution of my late respected friend Mr. Augustus Stafford, and I am greatly surprized to find that the men who were the chief persecutors of that noble hearted Englishman — who had brought distinct charges against him of using his office for the purpose of bringing his political influence to bear upon the dockyard boroughs —have themselves actually, and to a far more guilty extent than Mr. Augustus Stafford, exercised their political influence in those boroughs. On the 21st of April, 1852, Sir Baldwin Walker—who was then Surveyor of the Navy, and I may say the chief persecutor of my late hon. Friend Mr. Stafford—addressed a letter to the then Secretary of the Admiralty, for the purpose of forwarding his resignation to the Board of Admiralty. I will read an extract from that letter, which was dated the 21st of April, 1852—
I must beg to tender to their Lordships my resignation, for I can no longer continue to hold the appointment of Surveyor of the Navy with such an imputation on my character, as that of allowing political motives to influence my admission to the Board.Nothing further was heard in regard to Sir Baldwin Walker's resignation either inside or outside of this House. I believe that in consequence of some communications which had taken place between the Lords of the Admiralty, Mr. Augustus Stafford, and Sir Baldwin Walker, the latter gentleman was induced to withdraw his resignation. But on the 19th of April, 1853, Sir Benjamin Hall brought forward some distinct charges against Mr. Augustus Stafford, to support which Sir Baldwin Walker was the chief witness. On the 22nd of the same month a Committee was appointed to inquire into dockyard appointments and promotions. This Committee consisted of five Members of this House, and Lord Seymour, now the Duke of Somerset, was the Chairman. I hold in my hand some short extracts from the Report of that Committee. The Committee report that—In 1849, Sir Francis Baring, being then First Lord of the Admiralty, introduced an additional precaution for the exclusion of political influence from the administration of the dockyards, by writing himself to the superintendents and principal officers whom he appointed, asking them as officers and gentlemen to give him an assurance that they would not interfere in the politics of the place. An important system of advancement must be productive of industry, and therefore of economy; such a system your Committee believe may be 1394 enforced, if the Board of Admiralty honestly persevere in its maintenance; and if, having appointed fit persons as superintendents, they direct them vigilantly to watch those whose fair co-operation can insure justice to candidates for promotion.The Report says in another place—For the purpose of securing a proper system of promotions in the dockyards, it may, perhaps, be fairly required that, if the system under which these promotions are now again regulated should be hereafter altered or modified, the information shall be laid before Parliament, as soon as an opportunity may be afforded for such communication.The Report strongly censured Mr. Stafford for interfering with the duties of Sir Baldwin Walker, in whose hands the promotions in the yards then rested, on the recommendation of the superintendents. In this Report the present Duke of Somerset declares distinctly that no Government officer was to interfere in the elections, and that the Board of Admiralty should not interfere between the superintendents and the Secretary of the Navy. In 1855 the right hon. Baronet the present Secretary of the India Board (Sir CharlesWood) became First Lord of the Admiralty; and to prevent the slightest mistake taking place afterwards on this important question, he issued an order or regulation, which ought to be as binding on officers of the navy as are the Rules of this House upon its Members. When, on a former occasion, the right hon. Gentleman was explaining to the House what he had done in reference to the patronage in the dockyards, he said—When I was First Lord the patronage was given over to the superintendents, and since then the Board of Admiralty have had nothing to do with promotion in the employment of the yards.The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty heard that statement, and he did not contradict it. He would now show the House what the facts really were. In 1858 the Government of Lord Derby came into office, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) became First Lord of the Admiralty. It is an extraordinary fact, that in a short time after the right hon. Baronet came into office, promotions were stopped in the borough of Devonport by Sir Baldwin Walker; and none of the vacancies that then occurred in that borough were laid before the Board of Admiralty. I have already told the House how often I had demanded that these vacancies should be laid before the Board of Admiralty. I was told that there were no vacancies, and therefore no appointments could be made 1395 in the borough of Devonport. On the last day of the Derby Government I again went to the Admiralty, and insisted upon the production of the list of vacancies; at last it was produced. I then saw the Secretary to the Admiralty, who took me to the First Lord (Sir J. Pakington) and placed the list in his hands, but that he could not interfere because he had just resigned office. I have before told the House how those vacancies were filled up immediately by Sir Baldwin Walker when the Duke of Somerset became First Lord of the Admiralty. Now, I here assert that the Duke of Somerset and Sir Baldwin Walker on that occasion did precisely that for doing which they had both censured so severely and cruelly Mr. Augustus Stafford. The other night, when I made a charge against Sir Baldwin Walker for having in 1859 issued an address to the electors of Devonport, for the purpose of preventing them voting for me, accusing me of having told falsehoods, I then stated I regretted that I was not able to produce a copy of the placard containing that address to the House. I have, however, since had it searched for, and I have it now in my possession. This is the placard I hold in my hand, and it was issued by Mr. R. M. Watson, the Chairman of Sir Arthur Buller's Committee, now my hon. Colleague, with Sir Baldwin Walker's name at the bottom of it. Now, let hon. Members observe that the man who sent in his resignation some years ago, because he alleged that Mr. Augustus Stafford had interfered with his duties, thought it becoming in 1859, when the Whigs were so anxious to keep me out of Parliament, to violate the pledge he then gave by issuing an address to the electors of Devonport conveying the most offensive charges against me. Sir Baldwin Walker's placard is headed "Refutation of Slander." The attention of the electors of Devonport is herein seriously called to the statement of Sir Baldwin Walker, Controller of the Navy, &c., &c. Now, the charges which I had made against Sir Baldwin Walker were these:—That during the time the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) was First Lord of the Admiralty he had kept back from him all knowledge of the vacancies that occurred in the borough of Devonport, so that no promotions could take place during that time. I stated how the case stood when the Government of Lord Derby had resigned, and how the appointments were made when the Duke of Somerset 1396 came into office as First Lord of the Admiralty. Now, the truth of that statement was confirmed by the evidence of Sir Baldwin Walker himself, before the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the control and management of the Dockyards appointed in 1860. In a letter from Sir Baldwin Walker to Mr. Watson, he says—Dear Sir,—I have to thank you for your kind communication, and to express a hope that the enclosed statement will be sufficient to prove that Mr. Ferrand's charges, as regards me, are false.Now Sir, before Sir Baldwin Walker attempted to make out my statements false, he should take care that his own statements are true. A statement was made by him to the electors of the borough of Devonport to which I am ready to take exception. I have proved that the late Board of Admiralty had never heard of any of the vacancies that took place in Devonport during their tenure of office, consequently they could not have issued any express order with regard to them. I avail myself of the present opportunity of apologising to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what I said in respect to the contents of the placard, as it was only from memory I then spoke of it. It appears I was wrong in saying that Sir Baldwin Walker had stated that the vacancies were not filled up on account of the right hon. Gentleman having made some mistake in his financial calculations. Sir Baldwin Walker denied that there were any vacancies kept back from the knowledge of the Board of Admiralty; that from the pressure of business, and the fact of an insufficient money Vote, certain vacancies were delayed, and he asserted that the appointments were duly made to temporary offices, and that the parties nominated were paid from the dates of the vacancies occurring. The Controller of the Navy went on to say, "From this statement it will be apparent that political motives had nothing whatever to do in the matter, that the statement of Mr. Ferrand had no foundation in fact, and that the charges which he had made against me are false." Now we will see whether Sir Baldwin Walker speaks the truth on this occasion. He first says that the vacancies had not been filled up on account of the deficient Vote of this House, and that if they had been filled up there would have been no money to pay the officers. He then goes on to say that there had been no needless severity exercised, that neither the service nor individuals suffered, as temporary appointments were 1397 made in the first instance, which, with few exceptions—Conservatives were the exceptions—and those for sufficient reasons— their Conservatism of course—were subsequently confirmed, and in all such cases these temporary officers were paid the same as if they had been confirmed at the several dates of their acting appointments. Again, he said, "the excess was met by the express orders of the late Board (Sir John Pakington's), by the vacancies not being filled up instead of by discharging the men." The House would observe that the passages which I have just quoted are contradictory of each other. In the first it is stated that the vacancies were not filled up because there was no money; but in the second it is alleged that the persons who were appointed temporarily were paid. How were they paid if there was no money to pay them? How could these temporary officers have been paid from the occurrence of the vacancies if there had been no money voted for the purpose? And then, thirdly, they were told that these vacancies had not been filled up at all. There is evidently a contradiction here in the statements made by Sir Baldwin Walker in the placards which he had caused to be posted in Devonport with the view of depriving me of the honour of representing that borough. It is notorious that I was deprived of my seat in this House by the intervention of Sir Baldwin Walker—that I was deprived of the honour which I now enjoy by the scandalous and disgraceful conduct of Sir Baldwin Walker. In his evidence before the Royal Commission he stated, that in consequence of a pressure of business, there had occurred a little delay in the forwarding of the names of the officers to the Board of Admiralty. But that delay extended over ten months. As I said before, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich never heard of those vacancies in the borough of Devonport during the whole tenure of his office as First Lord of the Admiralty. I have now done with Sir Baldwin Walker. He kept me out of this House for a considerable time; but our positions are now changed. Sir Baldwin Walker has had to cross the seas, and I now stand here as representative of the borough of Devonport. I now turn to Admiral Robinson. The other night I brought a distinct charge against Admiral Robinson, now Controller of the Navy. This gentleman was in 1859 the captain of the steam reserve at Devonport. As my gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) will read a 1398 letter to the House denying the charges I made on a former occasion against Admiral Robinson, I beg to repeat them, and to assure the House that I stand to them as correct, and that I make them upon my word of honour, and as a Member of this House. On the day of the nomination for the borough of Devonport, which took place in the Town Hall, a large building capable of containing upwards of 3,000 persons, I and my friends found on arriving there that my hon. Colleague opposite (Sir Arthur Buller) and his friends had arrived before us, and we had great difficulty in fighting our way into the hall, for there were as many outside eager to get in as had already assembled within the building. I forced my way as well as I could to the front of the platform, and I then observed that a barricade went down the centre of the hall to divide the two hostile parties. My party consisted of about two-thirds of those present; and scarcely had I and my immediate friends taken our places before I saw an officer in uniform stride over the benches and stand against the wall on the Whig side. He was dressed in the uniform of his rank, he had a quantity of gold lace on his clothes, and gold buttons, and he stood up while those around him were seated. There was the usual amount of confusion and cheering which attends a contested election, and when some one in the crowd called for "Three cheers for Sir Arthur Buller," I saw this gallant officer wave his handkerchief, and join in the call. He gave the cheers, waved his handkerchief, and caused great excitement; and, in fact, he acted as fugleman to his party on several occasions during the proceedings. At last he aroused a strong feeling of hostility against him, and his conduct was met with cries of "Shame, shame;" "Be off, you have no business here;" "You are transgressing the rules of the service," and so on; and I distinctly heard it said by several who were present, "That he had come there in the hope of getting a good place from the Duke of Somerset." There was so much excitement in the hall, caused by this gentleman's conduct, that I expected a row, and I appealed to the Mayor of Devonport, calling his attention to it, and requesting that he would desire the gentleman, who had violated the rules of the Admiralty by his being present, to leave the hall. The Mayor looked up and the Mayor looked down, but nothing more, and the gentleman remained till the end of the proceed- 1399 ings. It has been hinted to me that the Mayor of Devonport has written a letter to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, in which he says non mi ricordo. Now, as the Mayor is an extreme Whig, an earnest party man in the borough, and a strong influential supporter of my hon. Colleague, having made himself most active in his election, his denial of my statement must be received with that hesitation which a party man's declaration always will be when he says, "I don't remember." I do remember what occurred, and I have stated on my word and honour what I saw and what I will stand by. I understand my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) is going to read a letter he has received from Admiral Robinson; but, before he does so, I must call my hon. and gallant Friend's attention to the fact that Admiral Robinson has made two statements with respect to this charge. When I was addressing the House on a former occasion, Admiral Robinson was sitting under the gallery, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wakefield went to him, and he afterwards informed me that Admiral Robinson said there was not one word of truth in what I had said of his conduct at Devonport, and that all he did there was to call for a lady on his way home—[Sir JOHN HAY: NO, no!] —that he called at the Town Hall for some person or other to take home as he returned from his official duties. Now, he has written a letter, which my hon. and gallant Friend has shown to me and other hon. Members, which he is to read to the House, in which Admiral Robinson says he was there in uniform, and that he had a right to be there, notwithstanding Sir Francis Baring's circular prohibiting all officers from interfering at elections. A right to be there! why, he was not even a voter! [Sir ARTHUR BULLER: Yes, he was.] If he was he had no right to interfere. He, however, did so, and towards the conclusion of his letter he says he was leaving the Town Hall when a gentleman came up to him and said he would report his conduct to the Board of Admiralty, for what lie had done that day, and his reply was, "You are quite welcome; send me the letter, and I will forward it myself." Can you imagine anything more improper than that Admiral Robinson, having violated the rules of the service, should have made such a reply to a person who complained to him of his conduct? But it shows to me, and I think it must appear clear to 1400 the House, that he knew no fault would be found with him by the Admiralty; and to show that no fault was found with him, in the following year—1860—he was, I stated the other night, appointed "our trusty and well-beloved Commissioner" to go down to the borough of Devonport and inquire into the control and management of the dockyard, and in the following year he was appointed Controller of the Navy. As to the hon. and gallant Member for Wake-field, and the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty, who will probably read a letter each to the House, perhaps the House will be so indulgent as to allow me to read a statement which I have received from Devonport confirmatory of my statement. It was from the gentleman who proposed me on the second occasion, and who is a gentleman of great influence and standing in the borough. The letter says—Admiral Robinson may say what he pleases about his not being at the hustings and taking part in the election proceedings you mention. You might get fifty people at least to swear to the fact, if necessary. His appearance there in the uniform of his rank excited my own attention, and I condemned the proceedings as improper to our friends, both at the hustings and after. You will understand that Admiral Robinson was not a voter at the election you mention.I have another letter from a leading supporter of his at Devonport, who says —The fact is that Admiral Robinson wore the uniform of a captain in the navy, which rank he then held, and it is a quibble to say he was not in full uniform. Admiral Robinson cheered, waved his pocket-handkerchief, and was as excited as the most extreme and violent partisan in the room. Why, he was the observed among observers. I heard men near me cry 'Shame.' On hearing that cry I inquired who the captain in uniform was. I have heard admirals and captains in Her Majesty's navy speak in the strongest terms of his conduct on that day. You may make what use you like of this; and if my statement is not enough to justify yours, why there are hundreds of Whigs who will back you out.[A laugh.] And I have this morning received a statement from several most respectable persons at Devonport to the following effect:—Devonport, March 2, 1864." We, the undersigned, beg to state, that at the nomination of Sir Arthur Buller in August, 1859, Captain Robinson, who was then Captain of the Steam Reserve at this port, was in the Town Hall, in the uniform of his rank, taking a very prominent part in the proceedings by standing up in a most conspicuous place, cheering and waving his white pocket-handkerchief. The Town Hall was crammed, consequently Captain Robinson must have been there before the proceedings commenced and remained until the close, as it was utterly impossible for him to have got to the place where he stood (upon the high benches), unless he had 1401 been admitted to the hall before the public were let in. We saw him when we entered the hall, and his being there in uniform was generally remarked upon and considered as highly indecorous and improper. Five hundred persons will corroborate this statement.
| "FRED. ROW, M.D. | GEORGE H. E. RUNDLE. |
| "JOHN C. THIERENS. | WILLIAM OLIVER. |
| "JOSIAH G. UNCROP. | W. P. SWAIN. |
| "THOMAS H. HAWKER. | JOHN GREENWOOD." |
§ My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wakefield says Admiral Robinson was not there in full uniform. What I meant was, that he wore an officer's dress with buttons and lace upon it. I do not mean to say he had a cocked hat and a sword on, because it was not likely he would have worn them. After the letters I have read I hope the House will say that I have not made my statement on light grounds, and that I have only done my duty in bringing it forward. I wish with all my heart poor Augustus Stafford had been spared to be sitting on these benches. Yes, he was a persecuted, and, politically speaking, a murdered man, and his bitterest enemies were the Duke of Somerset and Sir Baldwin Walker—men who I have proved have violated that law ten times more than he did. It is true that the man who preferred the charges against him (Sir Benjamin Hall) went up to the House of Lords, and poor Augustus Stafford went down into the grave—a broken-hearted man—cruelly persecuted to death by two Whigs, who I have proved have violated the law; and Sir, the Duke of Somerset, who is made such a parade of in the Report I have quoted, has rewarded Admiral Robinson for outraging public decency in Devonport, by appointing him Controller of the Navy in the room of Sir Baldwin Walker, who, at the Duke of Somerset's instigation, has fled across the seas to prevent his being examined before a Committee of this House. I now beg to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty the Questions of which I have given notice— Whether Admiral Robinson, the present Controller of the Navy, attended the nomination of candidates at the Devonport election in 1859 in the uniform of his rank as Captain of the Steam Reserve, and took an active part in the proceedings; and whether, in doing so, he acted in defiance of the rules laid down by the Admiralty for the control and management of the naval service?
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that as he had been alluded to he thought it right to explain before the noble Lord the Secretary 1402 of the Admiralty replied to the questions of the hon. Member for Devonport, the part which he had taken in this matter, and how it was that he had anything to do with it that evening. He might say—since there is sometimes (and very naturally so) a forgetfulness as to details of subjects brought under discussion—he might say, that on a former occasion he went to the hon. Member for Devonport, and asked him whether he meant that Admiral Robinson was present with a cocked hat, sword, and epaulettes, which appeared to him a very absurd thing; and he certainly understood the hon. Member to reply that Admiral Robinson was in full dress, which to a naval man meant a cocked hat, sword, and epaulettes. ["Oh!"]
§ MR. FERRANDI beg to say I never alluded to cocked hat, sword, and epaulettes.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that of course the hon. Member was right in his recollection, but the impression made on him was that the hon. Member affirmed that Admiral Robinson was in full dress. Perhaps his hon. Friend did not know the exact difference in naval uniforms. But he mentioned to the hon. Member the cocked hat, sword, and epaulettes, because it struck him as too absurd to suppose a naval officer would stand up like a parish beadle at an election, and he asked the question to make sure whether he had understood him rightly or not, It frequently happened that persons connected with the Admiralty attended the House, and as it was the first night of the Naval Estimates, Admiral Robinson happened to be in the gallery when the hon. Member made the statement which they were now discussing. He (Sir John Hay) went to Admiral Robinson and said, "What on earth is this you have been doing? Can you explain it at all?" Admiral Robinson had not made two statements to him. The expression used was that there was not a word of truth—he did not mean it at all disparagingly to the hon. Member in reference to his being there in full dress. Further than that, Admiral Robinson had written a letter containing a full account of the whole proceeding, and he had shown it to the hon. Member, because there was one quotation which, as it would not be strictly in order, the hon. Member would not object to his omitting it. The letter was as follows:—
As you have asked me about the Devonport election of 1859, let me state in a few words what 1403 I know about it. The only circumstance which made any impression upon me is this:—As I was leaving the Town Hall after the election, with my wife, who had gone there with a friend to hear the speeches, a stranger came up to me and said he should write to the Admiralty to say that he had seen me in the hall in uniform. I very civilly offered to forward his letter, and to certify to the fact that I had been there, as I had a perfect right to be. I never, of course, heard a word more upon the subject, or ever gave it a thought. I was dressed in a frock coat and cap, a dress I always wore on all occasions, according to rule, when within the limits of the port. You and every naval officer know that it was impossible I could have worn a cocked hat, sword, and epaulettes, except at a court-martial and in full dress. Epaulettes were worn only with an evening coat or in full dress. The story is too absurd, and it is not true. I assert that on whatever occasion I was in the Town Hall I was dressed as I have described; that I had a perfect right to be there— the same right that I had to be present, as a listener, at any public meeting lawfully assembled. I took no part whatever in the proceedings, any more than I do when I am under the gallery of the House of Commons. The Mayor of Devonport, at that time, does not even recollect that I was in the hall at all, much less does he remember being applied to by Mr. Ferrand on account of my interrupting him. The whole subject has so completely passed from my mind that I cannot recall the place where I stood. I know it was in the gallery, and that there was a great crowd, with the usual laughing and shouting accompanying election speeches. It is preposterous to suppose that the Duke of Somerset knew that I had any political opinions whatever. I may add that, as Captain of the Reserve, I had no charge, power, authority, or influence whatever in the dockyards. It is different, as you know, now, but in 1859 it was as I say. I really thought the whole story too absurd to ask any one to contradict it in the House, but these are the facts, and you may make what use of them you please.That was the note in question. It was a note written to him, unasked for, in consequence of the conversation which he had with Admiral Robinson, as he had before stated. It appeared to him to be almost a private note; but as the hon. Gentleman had requested him to read it, and as Admiral Robinson gave him permission to make what use of it he pleased, he thought it desirable to read it to the House. He should like to say a few words on the case. It must be remarked that Admiral Robinson was at that time Captain Robinson, of the Steam Reserve; that as Captain of the Steam Reserve he had no power in the dockyard; lie was merely the captain of a ship lying in Hamoaze. He polled at eight o'clock before he went down to his duty, and he believed he polled for the hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport (Sir Arthur Buller.) He was not sure whether it was on the same occasion; but, on the occasion in question, Admiral Robinson 1404 came to the meeting to join a party of friends and to see the fun which was going on, and he did not take any special part in the proceedings. Such was the Admiral's statement to him, and he must say he believed what the Admiral told him. A great deal had been said against Sir Baldwin Walker. He believed Sir Baldwin Walker to be a very able and a very zealous officer. He did not intend to go into the question which had been often mooted as to his conduct, but he was quite sure that Sir Baldwin Walker was one of the most honourable men in the profession, and that he was one of the most capable admirals whom we had afloat. He thought his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty owed Sir Baldwin Walker a word in defence, because he rather thought that any slackness in the Controller's department in reference to filling up vacancies, was owing to a charge made by the noble Lord, about five millions of money, which the clerks in the office were endeavouring to discover. If there was any neglect in filling up the appointments, it was partly owing to the attention paid to the noble Lord, who was then sitting on the Opposition side of the House, and was a very ardent naval reformer. Whatever might be said of the conduct of various Cabinet Ministers in reference to elections at Totness or Tamworth, he thought the Duke of Somerset, in making naval appointments, was not unduly influenced by political motives, and he was happy to bear testimony to the noble Duke's conduct in that respect.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETI thank the hon. and gallant Member for Wake-field for his noble and kind defence, both of Admiral Robinson and Sir Baldwin Walker. It does him infinite credit, because it shows that he puts aside party feelings, and wishes to do justice when anything like slanderous attacks are made upon honourable men. I need add but a few words. I wish to subscribe to what the hon. and gallant Officer has said in reference to the delay in the promotions. I believe, if any one was to blame, it was myself. In the spring of 1859, Sir Baldwin Walker was very much occupied in making the necessary preparations for the armour-plated ships which were then about to be constructed under the direction of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, and was likewise extremely troubled about the accounts. When in that year I made the Motion relative to the cost of the 1405 construction of our ships, it was construed I in a manner which I never intended. It was construed into a suspicion that the money had been squandered, or, even worse, had been misapplied. But that was not my meaning or my intention, nor did I ever entertain such a suspicion. That suspicion was, however, fostered by more than one hon. Member, and Sir Baldwin Walker naturally felt anxious about the matter, and he put the strength of his department on the work of getting out the accounts, which caused the delay in the promotions. I was only then able to form my opinion of the cost of the construction of our ships from the imperfect information that we possessed at that time, and I explained that what I desired were accounts on the table showing what our ships cost. In the absence of any accounts, I had gone carefully into the matter for the last few years, and made such accounts as I could; but I asked the Admiralty to explain them in detail, asserting that I could not make out how the money was expended. I may have been right or wrong, but I state this now in order to account for the fact of delay in those promotions. After all the assertions, however, as to the delay in those promotions, when we came to sift the thing to the bottom, I find that the delay was very inconsiderable. It is quite true that there were a great many promotions just after the present Government came into office. Those promotions arose in this way:— First, proposals for the dockyards in March contained recommendations for seventy-three acting appointments. The persons proposed were authorized on the 11th of March, by an Admiralty order, to be provisionally employed pending the results of examination to be held. The result of the examination was sent up in May. It was referred to Devonport for explanation, and was returned to the Controller's Office on the 18th of June, and submitted to the Board on the 2nd of July. Therefore, out of all these promotions, the only delay was from the 18th of June to the 2nd of July; and, as every one knows that in the dockyards very careful investigation is necessary to insure a proper choice of persons for promotion, I do not think that delay was of any great consequence. I endeavoured to ascertain whether there could be any foundation for the statement that promotions had been kept back, as stated by the hon. Member for Devonport, with a view to their being made by the 1406 Duke of Somerset, in lieu of my right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington). Now here, I think, is a proof that the allegation is utterly without foundation. On inquiry, I found that in the first six months of 1859, while my right hon. Friend was at the head of the Admiralty, 106 promotions were made; in the last six months of that year 151 were promoted. That fact I mention, to show that Sir Baldwin Walker had no political object in keeping back the promotions. I admit the delay, and also that I am partly to blame for it; but it is likewise chargeable in part, I think, to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) occupied Sir Baldwin Walker very much in the preparation of plans for armour-plated ships. I will not go back to the unfounded and slanderous attacks on that gallant Officer, which have been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I would rather take Sir Baldwin Walker's word than that Gentleman's oath. [Loud cries of "Oh! oh!"] Lord Clarence Paget having resumed his seat—
§ SIR WILLIAM FRASERI beg to move that the words just used be taken down.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETIf I have said a ything unparliamentary ["Oh! oh!"], I have only done so in defence— [Cries of "Move" and "take down the words."]
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONI rise to order. I hope the necessity for taking down the words will be averted by the noble Lord recalling the hasty expression which, I am sure, he could only have used in the heat of debate.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETWell, Sir, in deference to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman and to the House I shall be glad to retract that expression. But, at the same time, I wish in the strongest possible Parliamentary language that I can use to express my abhorrence of the attack made upon one of our bravest officers, who is serving the country now at the other end of the world, and who has served it for a long course of years with honour and dignity. I am positive that the assertion as to his having politically murdered a lamented friend of mine is utterly without foundation. Sir, with regard to Admiral Robinson having attended the election at Devonport, my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) has stated the circumstances of the case. I can only say, that from all I can learn—and I have the evidence of several impartial people— 1407 that Admiral Robinson only appeared in uniform at what is called the declaration of the poll, when the election is virtually over. The question is—was he there in contravention of any orders of the Admiralty? Sir, I know of no order forbidding an officer in the navy to go and see the fun that is going on, provided he does not take part in the election. It was well known that the election in which the hon. Member was to take part would produce great excitement, that strong assertions would be made; great curiosity was felt, especially on the part of the ladies, and a strong desire to be present. My gallant friend, Admiral Robinson, went as a spectator, and not in any other capacity. I believe his word; and I do not think he took any part in the election beyond recording his vote. I, therefore, attach no weight to statements affecting so distinguished and gallant an officer of the navy who is not here to defend himself. In answer to the Question put to me by the hon. Member, I have to say that Admiral Robinson, the present Controller of the Navy, when captain of the Steam Reserve at Devonport, did appear at the election in the uniform of his rank, but did not take an active part in the proceedings.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONSir, I have been so much referred to, both by my hon. Friend behind me and by the noble Lord opposite, that perhaps I ought to say a few words on this question. With regard to the statement that a great number of appointments in Devonport dockyard were kept back in 1859, as my hon. Friend says, for political reasons—at this distance of time, and not being aware that my hon. Friend meant to appeal to me, I cannot pretend to speak with accuracy as to what occurred. As far as I can trust my memory, I believe that when I left office in 1859, a very considerable number of appointments had been kept back by the Controller of the Navy — Sir Baldwin Walker. But the House will recollect that those appointments passed through the hands of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) as Secretary to the Admiralty, and that as First Lord I had nothing to do with them. What the motives of Sir Baldwin Walker may have been, of course, I do not know, and cannot presume to say. I have not sufficient information to justify me in giving an opinion. But I am bound to say this—that I believe it was constantly the habit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone—who is, unfortunately, 1408 prevented from attending to-night by domestic circumstances—to make these appointments on the recommendation of Sir Baldwin Walker, and to take his recommendation as conclusive, reserving only to himself the right of investigation in any case where he might see reasons for prosecuting inquiries. It is only due to Sir Baldwin Walker to say, that if this was the constant habit of my right hon. Friend, it is difficult to see what political motives could have influenced that gallant officer to keep back the appointments. In the position which I held, I naturally had very constant communications with Sir Baldwin Walker, and whatever his conduct on former occasions may have been, or whatever his motives in this particular instance—of which, of course, I can know nothing—I feel bound to say that not once merely, but more than once, he gave me the most distinct assurances, as a gentleman and as a man of honour, that he was not in any way influenced in what he did by political motives. The other portion of my hon. Friend's question refers to the conduct of Admiral Robinson. I think the question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wakefield is, if he will allow me to say so, one of very minor importance. The question is, not whether Admiral Robinson had on a cocked hat or one of a different kind—the real question is, whether he appeared publicly on the scene of a contested election at Devonport in his uniform as captain of the Steam Reserve? My noble and gallant Friend opposite says it is true Admiral Robinson went there, but that he went merely as a spectator. I am well aware of the high professional reputation of Admiral Robinson; he is a very distinguished and able man; but I must say, and I think the feeling of the House will endorse the assertion, that Admiral Robinson would have acted with much sounder discretion had he abstained from presenting himself in uniform on that occasion. The complaint as to party and political influences in our dockyards is an old and very distressing one. Reference has been made to the order issued by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring). I have always thought that order did great credit to the right hon. Gentleman. It is quite clear he found the evil existing, or he would never have issued it. We have had reason to believe to-night that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir Charles Wood) found similar grounds of 1409 complaint. During the short time that I was First Lord of the Admiralty, I received constant complaints of the extent to which party influence and party injustice, and, I must say, party oppression was carried in the dockyards. So urgent were those representations that they induced me to issue a circular, drawn up in the strongest terms I could use, to forbid interference by any officers concerned for the Government in these yards. The matter is a difficult one to restrain; but it is the duty of every Minister, and of every individual having authority in these dockyards, to repress the influences which have so long been the subject of complaint. I therefore think the precedent was peculiarly unfortunate which was established by an officer so distinguished as Admiral Robinson, when, led away for the moment, as I am willing to believe, by political feeling, and with no intention of committing any impropriety, he presented himself at a place and on an occasion where much greater discretion would have been shown had he felt that his uniform ought not to be seen.
§ SIR ARTHUR BULLERsaid, he was present and played a considerable part in the proceedings in question, and knew the exact circumstances under which Admiral Robinson appeared on the occasion in question. The hon. Member for Devonport charged Admiral Robinson with having been present at the nomination and interfering, he then being in high authority in the dockyard. Now I beg the hon. Member will recollect, that at that time Captain Robinson held no position higher than that of simple captain of a ship, and had no authority whatever in the dockyard.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONThe hon. Gentleman, I am sure, does not wish to state anything in the least degree incorrect. But an officer at the head of the Steam Reserve of a port cannot, I think, be spoken of accurately as "merely captain of a ship."
§ SIR ARTHUR BULLERThe commander of the Steam Reserve at the time had no power in the dockyard, although new functions had since been added to the office. At all events, he had no electioneering power. He had no authority, direct or indirect, over any class of voters in the dockyard. Admiral Robinson, no doubt, went to the election and I apprehend that as an elector he had a perfect right to do so, provided he had leave of absence from his ship. That 1410 leave he had taken the precaution to obtain from his superior officer, and so was present at the nomination. He went simply to hear the fun of which there was reason to expect an ample store. He was not disappointed in that expectation; but it was a little unfair of the very person who provoked the merriment to complain of its expression. There were many hon. Gentlemen present, he believed, who had had occasion to smile at the exhibitions of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) in that House, but I can assure them that these are miserable and tame proceedings in comparison with his poluphloisboious performances on the hustings. Admiral Robinson is free to admit that he did laugh on that occasion; that he laughed heartily; but he kept within the legitimate bounds of honest laughter; and he declared upon his honour that he did nothing whatever to disturb, as it was called, the proceedings. He (Sir Arthur Buller) declared, upon his honour, that he was present at the time, that he did not see Admiral Robinson do anything of the kind, and he declared further, that if he had done any such thing he must inevitably have seen it. The hon. Gentleman complained of the mayor as being a Whig, and, like all other Whigs, refusing to do his duty. The mayor had a distinct recollection that no reference whatever was made to him as to the conduct of Admiral Robinson, and that it was impossible for the Admiral to have interfered in the proceedings without his knowledge. Admiral Robinson certainly did not interrupt the proceedings, and it was in the highest degree improbable that he should have done so, because at the close of the proceedings on the very day in question, his hon. Colleague (Mr. Ferrand) proposed, and he (Sir Arthur Buller) seconded, a vote of thanks to the mayor for his impartial conduct. Two days afterwards, at the declaration of the poll, he (Sir Arthur Buller) proposed, and his hon. Colleague seconded a similar vote.! At the nomination of Sir Michael Seymour a week before, his hon. Colleague, in proposing a vote of thanks to the same mayor, declared that, although he was opposed to him (Mr. Ferrand) in politics, he had behaved in a most honourable and gentlemanly manner, and that his character and conduct gave them reason to be proud of having such a person to preside over them. He (Sir Arthur Buller) was confirmed in his statement by several of the most respectable persons in Devonport, including 1411 the mayor and town clerk, that Admiral Robinson did not take part in the proceedings in any offensive way, or in the way described by the hon. Gentleman. The statement of his hon. Colleague was also flatly contradicted by Admiral Robinson himself.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSThe hon. Baronet who has just sat down has contented himself by proving a negative. He says, he never saw Captain Robinson act in the way described. [Sir ARTHUR BULLER: I said, I must have seen him if he had done so.] The hon. Gentleman forgets that, in contested elections, many things could have happened without the hon. Baronet seeing them; and I think the House will not be satisfied because Captain Robinson, after the lapse of four or five years, says he does not remember acting in the way the hon. Gentleman states he saw him act. I think that the documents read by the hon. Member for Devonport, especially the one signed by eight or nine gentlemen of Devonport, were clear and distinct upon the subject; and, supported by the clear and distinct statement of my hon. Friend himself, there can be no reasonable doubt in any man's mind, that Captain Robinson was led away by the fervour of his political feelings, and carried into a manifestation of those feelings in the way adverted to by my hon. Friend. But the practical point is this:—We are likely before very long to have a general Election, and we have been favoured by the noble Lord opposite with his view of the duties of Government officials in dockyard boroughs at elections. The Secretary of the Admiralty does not think it is contrary to the instructions of the Admiralty that an officer holding any public appointment should attend an election in uniform if he do not take any part in it. He says, that Captain Robinson attended this election, but took no active part in it, and that he did not therefore violate the instructions of the Admiralty. But I understood the noble Lord to admit that, if Captain Robinson had taken an active part in an election, he would, to that extent, have failed in his duty to the Admiralty. I want to know how far a naval officer, who manifests his anxiety that one candidate should be elected and the other defeated—I ask how far, under such circumstances, he may take part in a contested election? I hold that to be a practical question; and I am afraid that if a general election were to take place after this discussion, we should find in the 1412 dockyards of this country more naval gentlemen holding situations under Her Majesty's Government who would think themselves perfectly justified in taking what ordinary mortals would consider an active part, though, not in the estimation of the noble Lord, an offensive part, in the contests. I therefore think the question is one of practical importance. With respect to the language in which the noble Lord has indulged, I must say for myself that I think my hon. Friend has done well in bringing the subject before the House. I know perfectly well what would have been said if Admiral Robinson had appeared on the other side of the hustings; and, distasteful as it is to me personally to enter into these topics, I am grateful to any one who stands up in this House and shows that the party who sit on this side do not intend to allow gentlemen on the other side of the House a monopoly of electioneering purity, and enjoy entire and permanent immunity for such conduct as has been brought under our notice to-night. I admire the pluck and courage which my hon. Friend (Mr. Ferrand) has displayed, and I hope he will not be deterred from showing up proceedings of this kind whenever they may occur.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNESir, Parliament is so singularly dull, so singularly devoid of any object of public interest, that I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman on the other side should have thought to enliven our debates by introducing an electioneering brawl in the borough of Devonport—for this is nothing more nor less than a brawl brought before the consideration of Parliament. I have nothing whatever to say to the question on the paper with regard to the conduct of Admiral Robinson, except that I believe him to be a most distinguished officer, and in every way deserving the credence of the House. But when the noble Lord on the other side (Lord John Manners) rises in his place, and congratulates the hon. Member for Devonport and the House for the pluck and courage—for these were his words—which have been displayed by his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, I must say that I cannot congratulate the House on the "pluck" that abuses and maligns absent men, or the "courage" that never withdraws an imputation or makes an apology when he is proved to be wrong. Such is not my notion either of pluck or courage; and I would remind the House, and the noble Lord who has this idea of the British 1413 pluck and courage of his hon. Friend, that this is not the only occasion on which he has maligned and misrepresented men as honest and as honourable as himself. Sir, with regard to Sir Baldwin Walker, whose acquaintance I am proud of possessing, when I heard the hon. Gentleman impugning the conduct of this honest officer and honourable gentleman, although regretting the fire displayed by my noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, I could not be surprised at it. If ever there was a man who deserved well of his country for the real pluck and courage, and the ability he has shown as a public servant, it is Admiral Walker. And when the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) has the face to say that he ran away from his charges, I venture to doubt whether, with all his pluck and courage, the hon. Gentleman would have dared to make that charge before Sir Baldwin Walker's face. When, too, I heard that miserable and lukewarm apology from the right hon. Gentleman late the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir John Pakington), I felt utterly ashamed that he should have got up and, in that "lean and slippered pantaloon" way, have made an apology for Sir Baldwin Walker which the gallant officer would have been the first to reprehend. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have known that it was impossible for any man connected with the Admiralty, at any time or place, to know what Admiral Walker's polities were. He was a good public servant, but, as I know, he never interfered in any way with politics or the unjust disposition of patronage. Sir, if our public servants are to be treated in this way, and if all the brawls incidental to an election are to be thus brought forward— why, I might as well go into the old story of the right hon. Gentleman's conduct to me at Dover. I have forgiven him that conduct, and why should not the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport be equally forgiving, instead of making his seat in this House a tool for aspersing the character of public men? I did not intend to say a single word in this discussion, had it not been for the attack made by the hon. Member for Devonport; but I should feel myself unworthy of a seat in this House if I were to remain silent when I see the character of an officer of the highest standing impugned, and I might say his personal honour insulted, as it has been by the hon. Gentleman.