SIR JOHN HAYI rise, Sir, in accordance with the Notice I have given, to call attention to the removal of Admiral Cooper Key from the office of Superintendent of Portsmouth Dockyard. I had hoped, before bringing on the subject, to have seen some Papers to explain it placed in the hands of hon. Members: I moved for them before the Whitsuntide Recess; but the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was unable to produce them. I shall, therefore, with the kind indulgence of the House, state the case as I have been able to obtain it from information I believe to be accurate, leaving to the First Lord of the Admiralty the opportunity of denying my statement or of admitting it, if he thinks he can show to the House that Admiral Key's removal is a just and proper act. At any rate, I feel sure that the case of Admiral Key deserves the consideration of the House. I think it will be right, before alluding to the treatment of Admiral Key, that I should remind the House what manner of man Admiral Cooper Key is. For though 1885 Admiral Key is probably known by name and reputation to most hon. Members, he may not be personally known to many, as he has never taken any active part in political affairs. He is not what is called an officer of great political interest; but by dint of hard work, great scientific acquirements, and considerable professional knowledge, Admiral Key attained, at a very early age, to a high position in the Royal Navy. I wish, before stating the hardships and unmerited treatment which Admiral Key has received at the hands of the present Government, to allude very briefly to some of his distinguished services. Having served very creditably in the junior ranks of his profession, he went to the Royal Naval College, and obtained his commission as a lieutenant, when a lieutenant's commission was to be obtained by hard study, combined with great mathematical acquirements. Admiral Key was one of the first officers to obtain a commission by that honourable method; and I have been assured, by those competent to form an opinion, that Admiral Key's mathematical proficiency was so considerable that he might easily have obtained the position of a Wrangler at Cambridge. As a lieutenant he served with credit, and as a commander, when in command of the Bulldog during the Revolution in 1848, he was employed on the Coast of Italy, and received the thanks of Her Majesty's Government for his prudent conduct, as well as those of the Ambassador Extraordinary—Lord Minto—who was for a time embarked in his ship. Again, as a captain, he has always obtained great credit from his superior officers; and in the Baltic, during the Russian War, he performed distinguished service, especially in the Roads of Revel, for which he obtained the decoration of the Bath. He was afterwards employed in China, under Sir Michael Seymour and Lord Elgin, and at the capture of Canton, after displaying great gallantry in the storming of the town, he, by his adroitness, personally succeeded in seizing Commissioner Yeh, which greatly assisted our diplomatic arrangements in China. At the conclusion of these services he had not only obtained honours from the Crown, but had received many recognitions and marks of distinction from the learned Societies on account of his great scientific reputation. Soon after this Admiral Key was selected by 1886 the Duke of Somerset to fill the onerous post of captain of the Excellent, and head of the Royal Naval College, and was thus placed at the head of the scientific gunnery of the Navy, a post which he held for five years, with great credit to himself and great advantage to the country. Soon after Lord Derby took Office in 1866 my right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) found it necessary to create the office of Director General of Naval Ordnance during a time of great transition in the armament of the Navy. He selected Admiral Key for that post, and the appointment was received with acclamation by the whole profession; for at a time of great change in the art of naval gunnery no man was more capable of giving good advice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) continued Admiral Key in the office of Director General of Naval Ordnance, and on quitting Office he left him in that post, and no doubt supposed that Admiral Key's services would have been of great advantage to the present Board, for he is not only a man of great ability, but a gentleman of admirable temper and engaging disposition. He was shortly after, however, dismissed from the post of Director General of Naval Ordnance, and it is very difficult to fathom the reasons which may have led to that dismissal. For want of any better, reason, perhaps it may be found in the unintelligible desire of the present Board of Admiralty to put the country to the cost of a new trial of the Whit-worth ordnance. As the House knows, and the Estimates show, the First Lord of the Admiralty is anxious, for reasons best known to himself, to re-open the Whitworth controversy, and I find, in a Paper in the hands of hon. Members, that Admiral Key's opinions on that subject were well known to the Board. Admiral Key was their responsible adviser on gunnery matters, and he thought this fresh trial unnecessary. He had reported that—
The service system satisfies every requirement of the service; and it would therefore be most impolitic to incur the enormous expense of introducing any other, until some defect is discovered in that now adopted, for which a permanent remedy cannot be found.Admiral Key's opinion was opposed to that of others at the Board, who desired, for reasons best known to themselves, to re-open again this extravagant expendi- 1887 ture, and he was removed to Portsmouth to be Admiral Superintendent of the dockyard there. He had been barely a year and a few months there when he was again removed. I use the word removed and not dismissed, as the First Lord seems to object to it, and I am again anxious to ascertain from the First Lord what is the cause of that second removal. For want of any better reason, I must attribute it to the fact that Admiral Key objected to the new system of purchase adopted by the Admiralty, and because he called attention to the indifferent quality of certain articles, perhaps insignificant in amount, which had been obtained either by contract or by the new purchase system. I believe I am correct in stating that Admiral Key was the first person to call attention to the grievous blunder by which all the good anchors were sold at the price of old iron; and Admiral Key prevented the Portsmouth anchors being sent away from that dockyard to West Bromwich—where I understand anchors from other dockyards still are remaining, waiting to come back by railway during the Recess, when hon. Members may be less attentive to such wasteful expenditure. I understand that Admiral Key has also, on various occasions, called attention to the inferior quality of the coals bought by the Admiralty buyer, and has, as in duty bound, forwarded the reports of the proper inspecting officers as to the inferiority of stores received. But by his office he was bound to do this, for he was placed in the dockyard to look after the interests of the nation, and it must be to the advantage of the country that there should be in that position a man who is not only competent to give an honest opinion, but bold enough to express it, however distasteful it might be to the authorities at the Admiralty. His zeal, however, gave offence at the Admiralty, and they determined to remove him from Portsmouth Dockyard and to send him to Malta. Now, Admiral Key is not a rich man. He had expected the office of Director General of Naval Ordnance to be one in which his services would be continued at least for five years. He had come to London and had purchased a house. Well, when he was packed off to Portsmouth, the house was thrown on his hands. He had again made preparations, as in duty bound, for a residence at Portsmouth for five years. 1888 Again his expectations are disappointed, and, for no fault of his, he is again despatched to an inferior post at Malta. I understand that Admiral Key was, without any warning, summoned to the Admiralty, and, very much to his surprise, was told by the First Lord that he must be uncomfortable at Portsmouth, and that it would be better for him to go to Malta. Admiral Key said he was not dissatisfied with Portsmouth, and had no wish to leave it. Admiral Key was then told that it was for the benefit of the public service that he should resign Portsmouth Dockyard and serve somewhere else. The consequence was that he was obliged to accept Malta Dockyard or nothing, and a great point had been made of his being also second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet. But the Dockyard Admiral at Malta is, when next in rank to the Commander-in-Chief, always second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet. Admiral Fan-shawe is so at this moment, and in all my experience it has always been so. During the critical condition of affairs with France before the Syrian War, Sir John Louis, the Dockyard Admiral at Malta, came to Vourla and took command of the Fleet during the indisposition of the Admiral—Sir Robert Stop-ford. During the Russian War my old and distinguished friend the Governor of Greenwich Hospital, Sir Houston Stewart, was Dockyard. Admiral at Malta, and pushing forward the duties there with great zeal and success. But on the retirement of Admiral Dundas from the chief command, Sir Houston Stewart proceeded from Malta to the Black Sea as second in command. There is nothing new in this, and Admiral Cooper Key will be second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet in virtue of his commission as Rear Admiral Superintendent of Malta Dockyard. Well, Sir, the result of my inquiry has been to show that Admiral Key was removed from one office—that of Director General of Naval Ordnance—and sent to Portsmouth because he gave disagreeable advice to the Admiralty as to the Whit-worth guns, and he is again sent away from Portsmouth to an inferior post because he objected to the quality of certain stores. It may be said by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty that these repeated, changes have been made for the benefit 1889 of the service; but I, for one, cannot deem it advantageous to the country to take a most distinguished officer like Admiral Key and treat him in a manner be undeserved and so likely to humiliate him in the eyes of his brother officers. I have therefore thought it right to bring the matter before the House, and I now leave it in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to make whatever explanation he thinks right on the subject.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would reply, as clearly as he could, to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay); and the state of the case as to this question was simple. Somewhere about a fortnight ago the hon and gallant Baronet put a Notice on the Paper, of his intention to call attention to the removal of Admiral Key from Portsmouth Dockyard, and to move for Papers, and on the last day before the Recess he did, at a few hours' Notice, ask for Papers and coupled with the request a Motion for information as to any goods delivered under contract at Portsmouth Dockyard which had been objected to by the officer superintending there, clearly intending, as his speech that evening showed, to connect in some way the rejection of certain goods at Portsmouth Dockyard with the change made in the appointment of Admiral Key. There was no objection to the production of the Papers relating to Admiral Key, and as there had been no correspondence with the Admiralty on the subject, the Paper now placed on the Table was simply the ordinary service appointment of Admiral Key to be second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet. With regard to the second part of the Motion, in reference to goods objected to, he was anxious not to set a precedent of giving information of that kind relating to a large number of contractors in a Parliamentary Paper; but, at the same time, he was desirous that the hon. and gallant Baronet should have the fullest information on the subject, and he authorized the officer in the Contract department to show the hon. Baronet in detail information of any article he might inquire about, and which had been delivered since the beginning of last year. The statement of all the articles objected to on any grounds during the last 15 months covered many pages, and out of many hundreds of articles only five or 1890 six of the objections had been maintained. He found that altogether 46 different contractors had, since the beginning of last year, or since the present system of purchase and contract had come into operation, had their goods objected to. Of these 46 only six were firms supplying the Admiralty within the time of the present system of contract and purchase. All the rest were firms who supplied goods under the former system, and the only new firms were two or three in Birmingham and the centre of England. He would state in general terms what were the cases of objection which the hon. and gallant Officer had connected with this matter. One referred to some paper, and that was explained the other day by the Secretary to the Admiralty. A certain quantity of brown paper, delivered under contract according to the former state of things, was objected to as not being according to pattern. The manufacturer thereupon applied to the Admiralty for a revision of the objection, and the article was found according to pattern in four particulars; but it was objected to on one account—namely, on the ground that it was not of proper weight. Inquiry was then made as to the way in which the weight was ascertained, and it was explained that a single sheet was weighed, and its weight multiplied by the whole number of sheets in the ream. That, on consideration, was not thought the proper mode of proceeding, and on a ream of paper being sent for and weighed, it was found to be up to the proper weight according to the contract, and it was therefore ordered to be received. The next case referred to certain wash-stand tops, of which 26 were objected to. It was stated that they were a little warped; but they were quite available for service, and up to pattern, and they were consequently ordered to be accepted, and no complaint had been made about them at Portsmouth. Then there was a case relating to some china articles, which were, on inquiry, found good for service; but some bowls and common jugs were under weight. This china was sent to Devonport, and a new set was sent to Portsmouth and accepted. Then came the case of a certain leather contract, which had, on a former occasion, been fully explained by the Secretary to the Admiralty. It was found necessary to put an end to a leather con- 1891 tract in existence before a new contract was made, it being thought advisable to revise the contracts, because at different dockyards the same pattern was not maintained. While this was occurring there was a sudden requisition at Portsmouth for some leather. Accordingly, a quantity of leather was purchased from a firm of the highest position, he believed, in the leather trade; but when it went down to Portsmouth it was not used, and several weeks afterwards complaints were made that the leather was of inferior character. The leather was then sent to town and examined most carefully by an officer of the highest standing. It was subjected to test, and stood the test three times, and the result was that the Government, having purchased it on a great emergency, saw no reason to reject it. The fifth case was that in which certain contractors, who had supplied the Admiralty for three generations, had certain bunting rejected at Portsmouth. That was also a contract under the former arrangement. The contractors applied to the Admiralty for a revision of the decision, and a very careful inquiry was made. The result was, that after not only the officers of the dockyard, boat also of different ships, had reported independently, the white bunting was declared perfectly good, and with respect to the blue and red, which to a certain extent was inferior, a reduction of 15 per cent was made, which the contractors acceded to, and which was perfectly satisfactory to the officers at Portsmouth. There was no difference of opinion whatever between the Admiralty and the local officers on the subject. It was, in his opinion, essentially for the protection of traders that the appeal should exist, and that the manufacturers should not be left entirely at the mercy of the local officers. These were all the eases, which he had explained fully to the House, and on which the gallant Officer had founded the presumption that it had been found necessary to take steps by which Admiral Cooper Key might be placed in what was called a humiliating position. He hoped that on the subject of these contracts he had been very plain with the House. But the hon. and gallant Member had alluded to another article, as to which he was entirely under a misapprehension. He stated that a local officer at Portsmouth had rejected some coal. Now, the hon. 1892 and gallant Member had been to the Admiralty, and he was shown that there had been no case of rejection of coal at Portsmouth. He (Mr. Childers) had also made inquiry himself, and he found the fact was so. Having now gone through one by one the cases of rejection at Portsmouth which were supposed to have some connection with the arrangement, he would now explain why Admiral Cooper Key was no longer Admiral Superintendent at Portsmouth. So far as regarded the character, abilities, and position of that naval officer, he endorsed very freely and heartily all that had been said by the hon. and gallant Baronet. Admiral Cooper Key had from the first distinguished himself in his profession as lieutenant, commander, and in the higher positions he had since filled. He believed Admiral Cooper Key to be one of the ablest and most distinguished officers in Her Majesty's Navy, and he would repeat the language he had used a fortnight ago in the course of a casual debate upon the Navy Estimates—namely, that he knew no officer whose future career might be looked forward to with more confidence. But the hon. and gallant Officer had entirely misread or misunderstood—he did not impute to him that he had wilfully mis-described—what had occurred with respect to the transfer of the services of Admiral Cooper Key from the offices which he had held during the last two years; he stated that he was obliged to rely, to a certain extent, upon rumours, and in depending on rumours he might be mistaken. It was perfectly true that Admiral Cooper Key, when captain, was selected by the Duke of Somerset for the command of the Excellent; it was true that he had been selected by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington) to be Director 'General of Naval Ordnance; but it was also true that he had not been confirmed in that office till the present Board of Admiralty came in, and he himself (Mr. Childers) had moved the Treasury to make the office a permanent one. Till then, the office was a mere temporary acting appointment, and he had placed it on the Estimates at a salary of £1,000 a year. The hon. and gallant Officer had given a very mistaken apocryphal account of what he called Admiral Key's dismissal or discharge from Portsmouth, and his appointment to an inferior office, because 1893 he had run counter to the views of the Admiralty in regard to the Whitworth guns, there being, in fact, no correspondence then on the subject. There was not a word of truth in that. He was simply selected after his cruise in command of the Coastguard Fleet at last Whitsuntide, under the eye of several members of the Admiralty, for the superior office of Superintendent of Portsmouth Dockyard, which had then become vacant by the appointment of Vice Admiral Wellesley as Commander-in-Chief to the North American Station. Instead of being a discharge, or dismissal, it was exactly the reverse; the appointment was given him—as it was believed he would be anxious for it—as one of great honour and advantage to him. At the time that appointment was made, there was some difference of opinion among his advisers as to whether it would be wiser to send Admiral Key to sea in command of the fleet, or to Portsmouth Dockyard; and he must take on himself the responsibility or blame, if it should be so considered, of not giving him a foreign command. He now came to the second change of his appointment. The other day the office of Superintendent of Malta Dockyard became vacant. The hon. and gallant Officer said that office was connected with the second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet. That was the case, no doubt, some years ago; but, as the hon. and gallant Baronet knew, for some years past it had not been so.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, it was no mistake on his part. He entirely differed from the right hon. Gentleman as to the duty of the dockyard admiral at Malta.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished the hon. and gallant Baronet to understand that he did not impute any wilful misstatement to him, but only that his memory was at fault. The practice used to be for the two to go together; but for some years past there had been no second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet, and the officer who held the appointment of Superintendent of Malta Dockyard, instead of hoisting his flag in the Mediterranean, had hoisted it in a nominal ship in the harbour, and did not go outside. Admiral Fanshawe never went with the Malta Fleet during the time of his appointment. The present Board of Admiralty determined a short time since, that when the first 1894 vacancy occurred it would be desirable to revive the appointment of second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet. He would not go into the reason for that change; but they were connected with the policy of keeping our fleets at sea as much as possible, and therefore it was thought, on public grounds, that the office should be revived, and that the second in command of the fleet should be connected with Malta Dockyard. That being decided, when Admiral Fanshawe was promoted they came to the conclusion, having regard to the public advantage, that the office should be conferred on Admiral Key. He accordingly saw him, and stated to him that his appointment was made by the unanimous advice of the Board. He hoisted his flag a day or two ago, and would proceed to the Mediterranean in a few days. He (Mr. Childers) had stated that the Board of Admiralty considered it for the public advantage that this officer, of whom he had spoken in fitting terms, should be appointed to that office; and he hoped the House would not take on itself the responsibility of revising the acts of the Executive Government in respect to the appointment of individual officers, when those who were responsible said they considered their appointment for the public advantage. On that ground he hoped that on this, as on other matters, the House would continue to place confidence in Her Majesty's Government.
§ MR. CANDLISHsaid, the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite had stated that Admiral Cooper Key was removed from the office of Dockyard Superintendent because he quarrelled with peculation. That was a statement of a very serious nature, involving, as it seemed to him, the character of the First Lord of the Admiralty; who must, if this accusation were true, be an aider and abetter of peculation. It devolved, therefore, upon the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite to bring the charge in some definite and responsible shape before the House.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he, no doubt, had intended to imply that it was the duty of the dockyard admiral to prevent peculation; but that the discouragement he received for endeavouring to prevent it was calculated to encourage rather than prevent peculation.
§ MR. CANDLISHsaid, the identical words the hon. and gallant Baronet had 1895 used, were that Admiral Key was "removed because he had quarrelled with peculation." That was a statement of so grave a character that the hon. and gallant Baronet owed it to himself to substantiate it.
§ MR. CANDLISHsaid, he had taken down the words at the time. But of course, if the hon. and gallant Baronet now declared that he did not attach to those words the meaning which they would ordinarily bear, or that they did not express his actual meaning; or wished now to withdraw the words themselves, then, of course, all his charges against the Admiralty fell to the ground, and the purpose for which he (Mr. Candlish) had risen would be accomplished.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the hon. Gentleman had persisted in stating that he intended to say what he did not mean to say. He did not say what the hon. Gentleman had attributed to him; but he had no objection to the interpretation of the hon. Member—namely, that the Admiralty had removed a most efficient officer, because he challenged the stores sent in for the public service, and that by removing him for so doing they had encouraged peculation.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had described exactly the nature of the objections made.
§ MR. CANDLISHsaid, he did not think the statement of the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite had materially altered the facts as he (Mr. Candlish) put them before the House. The hon. Baronet's statement now was, that the Admiralty, by the course which they had taken, had encouraged, or in some way had connived at, peculation, [Sir JOHN HAY: Hear, hear!] Well, if that were so, the imputation was a very grave one, and ought to rest upon unquestionable facts. But no facts whatever had heen adduced by the hon. and gallant Baronet, who was now plainly called upon to bring the matter forward in some distinct and specific shape in which the House could deal with it.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman would move for a Committee he would second it. He was sorry the Government, for its own credit, did not do it.
§ MR. CANDLISHsaid, the responsi- 1896 bility did not rest with him, but with the hon. and gallant Baronet himself.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought the question which had been raised by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) was sufficiently grave in itself, without having new and foreign matter imported into it by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Candlish). The hon. Gentleman opposite might wish to give to the Motion a party character, and to stop discussion, but they would not stop him from saying what truth required. The character of Admiral Cooper Key was the property of the country, and if he had not received proper and worthy treatment at the hands of Her Majesty's Government there could be no more fitting subject of Parliamentary inquiry and discussion. Admiral Key was known to the whole country; at the present day there was no man who was a greater honour to the profession which he belonged to; and the issue raised by his hon. and gallant Friend was simply this—whether Admiral Key had received at the hands of the Admiralty treatment such as he was entitled to by his high character and deserts. Two questions plainly grew out of the Motion, and, after listening attentively to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he must say that neither of those questions had been answered satisfactorily. His hon. and gallant Friend had used plain words. He stated that Admiral Cooper Key was dismissed, or sent away from the office of Naval Director of Ordnance—to which he himself (Sir John Pakington) had the honour of appointing him—because he considered there would be a waste of public funds and extravagance on the part of the Government in undertaking fresh experiments with what was called the Whitworth ordnance, when we were already in possession of guns performing the duty satisfactorily and approved both by the profession and the public. Such a statement as this at once raised the question, why was Admiral Cooper Key deprived of the post of Naval Director of Ordnance, which he held very greatly to the advantage of the country? The right hon. Gentleman opposite gave no satisfactory answer to that question. Then came the second question. Admiral Key was made Naval Superintendent of Portsmouth Dockyard, and there had to fulfil functions of great importance 1897 to the public service in judging as to the stores supplied. If he discharged his duty ably and honestly, he was bound to report to the Board of Admiralty any objections which he might discover as to the character and quality of the stores sent in. He understood that this duty was performed by Admiral Key. Why, then, was he sent away from Portsmouth? Speaking with perfect candour, he was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman opposite gave no answer whatever to this question. According to the usual practice of the profession, an officer appointed to be naval superintendent of a dockyard retained that appointment for five years. Admiral Key had not been there more than one year when he was sent away. Now Admiral Key was known to be not only one of the most distinguished men in the service, but, it was no disparagement to say, also a very poor man; and such a removal from such an appointment was accordingly a cruel hardship upon him, unless the Government were in a position to show that good and valid reasons existed for the removal. He submitted that the fact of his rejecting stores afforded no ground whatever for his removal. The gallant admiral might have been mistaken as to the quality of particular stores; but, in objecting to those which he considered faulty or unsuitable, he was only honestly discharging his duty, and should have been thanked and encouraged, not dismissed by the Government. If Admiral Key was not at liberty to reject stores, why was he sent to the Dockyard at all? He wanted answers from the Government to these difficult questions, for as yet no answer whatever had been given. The case stood thus—a personal hardship, professional discredit, and pecuniary loss had been inflicted on one of the most distinguished men in this country, and down to that moment no explanation whatever had been given by the Government of the motives which influenced them in taking this extraordinary course.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the House would perhaps permit him to say a word in explanation. Admiral Cooper Key had been removed to an office the salary of which, he believed, was not only not smaller, but was absolutely larger than that which he had formerly received. If Admiral Cooper Key could show that by the removal he had suffered any pe- 1898 cuniary loss the Admiralty would be willing to reimburse him.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that Admiral Cooper Key had, in common with the best officers of the British Navy, expressed his opinion with respect to the policy of the change made in the purchase system. The Paper containing these opinions was not on the Table, and as Admiral Cooper Key from the time that he joined in this controversy was doomed, the House could not properly discuss this question until that document was produced. The real offence of this distinguished officer was, that he had dissented from the course the Admiralty had taken in altering the practice of buying stores through open tender to what was called the purchase system. It was not now the time to go into the question of the purchase system, though, when the time for the discussion of that question arrived, he should be perfectly prepared to grapple with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers), to show that the words which he (Sir James Elphinstone) had used on a previous occasion were fully warranted by the facts, and to prove that the system was a vicious one leading to all kinds of peculation and jobbery. What they wanted to know was this—why was Admiral Cooper Key dismissed?—for his retirement was certainly not voluntary; and the post which he now occupied was inferior to the one from which he was dismissed. For his part he believed that Admiral Cooper Key had been twice removed because he was too honest for the present Administration.