MR. T. W. MARTINsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true that a Mr. Holden having been so injured as to lose the sight of an eye has been discharged from the Dockyard at Chatham on a gratuity of £8, and by whom tins gratuity was awarded? He had only to modify this Question so far as to say that he saw it stated in the newspapers, 1502 from which only he knew anything of the case, that the man had lost the sight not of one eye only, but of both.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that he had inquired into this case, and had found that it had been greatly exaggerated. The Mr. Holden alluded to was a hired workman at Chatham on day pay of 4s. 6d., not belonging to the establishment, "but liable to be discharged on a week's notice. He had been employed between five and six years; and about five years ago, not long after he was hired, lost the sight of one eye by a wound from a small piece of copper. This did not interfere with his employment on full wages ever since. In February last he was discharged on the reduction of numbers in the dockyards, and he applied to be retained. This was refused; but his papers were sent to the Treasury for a gratuity in consequence of the accident in 1865, and the Treasury awarded £8. The surgeon was of opinion that his capacity for work was "only slightly impaired." He now claimed more on the ground that the sight of the other eye was impaired. Having been yesterday summoned before the dockyard authorities to explain the matter, he confessed that he purposely concealed this in the hope of being retained in the service. They were, therefore, in the position of having been employing a man who concealed his disability for work until he was discharged, when he made it the ground of claim for a larger gratuity. He (Mr. Childers), however, ordered his papers to be again sent to the Treasury, with the additional facts now reported, for their consideration. The Admiralty had nothing whatever to do with these awards of gratuity.