§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £159,368, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871.
SIR JOHN HAYrose, not to propose any further reduction of the Vote, but to call attention to the mode by which the reduction of £9,336 had been obtained. Last year the Vote for the Admiralty Office was £168,706, and in addition to the decrease of £9,336, there was a transference to four other Votes of the sum of £4,106, which made the total decrease £13,442. As against that, it would be found that there were pensions to the amount of £25,511, which had been granted on the reduction of the Office; those appearing in the Estimates amounted to £20,511; and pensions estimated to amount to about £5,000 had been granted since the Estimates were printed. The retirement of 10 officers had been announced in the newspapers; and, as they were mostly well-paid officers, an average of £500 a year was a low estimate, Deducting the decrease for which credit was claimed, £13,442, from the increased amount of the pensions, £25,511, the reduction appeared to involve a present additional cost to the country of about 1650 £12,000 a year. Perhaps the staff of the Office had not been reduced below the strength adequate to the work of a time of peace like the present; but, in case of emergency, as those on the pension list could not be brought back to the Office, the increase of the staff that would be necessary would be very likely to render the present reduction anything but economy, although it might in the end be economy, if the present peaceful state of affairs were maintained long enough, and no expansion of the Office were called for.
§ MR. GOURLEYsaid, that if the Admiralty received £160,000 for the purposes of management, it ought to manage all the departments of the Navy with that sum; but, inasmuch as it appeared that part of the management of the Transport Service was let out to a private firm at a charge of £1,800, an outlay which the country ought to be saved, he should move the reduction of the Vote by that sum. Although it was said we had 390 ships in the Navy, when we deducted steam tenders, yachts, training-ships, and other vessels, which would be an encumbrance in case of war, we had but 131 vessels which could be of use, and of these only 40 were iron-clads; and the mere management of this number of ships cost us £3,000,000 per annum—a sum which might surely be reduced without impairing the efficiency of the Navy. Again, £1,800 was required for three Constructors in addition to the Chief Constructor; and considering that there were a number of draftsmen in the dockyards besides those in the London Office, and that we had but one, two, or three ships building at one time, he held that so many Constructors were unnecessary, and should, therefore, move the omission of the £1,800 required for their salaries. Coupling together the two items, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £3,600.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £155,768, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871."—(Mr. Gourley.)
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, it was notorious that the whole of the business connected with the Admiralty had been intrusted to the personal friends of either the First Lord or the Secretary of the Admiralty. The system was one which it was impossible sufficiently to 1651 deprecate. It led to jobbery of every description; and, at this moment, he believed greater jobbery was going on in the Admiralty Department than there had ever been at any former period in the history of this country. The matter of freight had been intrusted to a house with which the Secretary to the Admiralty was connected. They had repelled the accusation that they had received more than 1s. 3d. per ton; but there were such things as commissions. These commissions were an enormous price in time of peace, but a princely price in time of war. Boilers were taken out to Hong Kong at 15s. per ton, and there was a commission of 1s. 3d. on the freight. The same system of jobbery was running through every department of the British Navy. ["Oh, oh!"] Some hon. Gentlemen might have reasons for supporting the present system; but he denounced it as a fraud upon the public. Formerly, the plan was to go by open tender, and take the lowest offer for every description of stores required; but now a broker was employed who went into the market. The result of this was what The Shipping Gazette described the other day. Some freight was required for a ship bound to Bermuda. The ship captain went to his broker, who told him the price he could get was 13s. a ton. The captain declined to take it; but then came a gentleman on the part of the Admiralty, who said—"I will get you 26s. How much commission will you give me upon that?" He did not state that on his own authority, but on the authority of The Shipping Gazette. The evictions at the dockyards among the labourers and artisans had been of a more grievous nature than any evictions which had taken place in Ireland. The First Minister of the Crown said it might be written upon his tombstone that he had saved the country £2,000,000. But to effect this saving 5,000 homes had been desolated, and stores had been sold on such a scale that if a war arose the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues would be driven from Office, for they would be unable to refit the crippled ships that might come into port. These heartless evictions might have been prevented, even if the ships they intended to break up had been broken up by the Admiralty in their own yards, which might be done at a paying price. The reductions made at the Admiralty were made at the expense of the foreign squadrons and of the honour of the country; but there 1652 were hon. Gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House who did not care about the honour of the country. ["Order!"] The Vote now under discussion really raised the whole question at issue. The reduction of our foreign squadrons was a reduction of the power, the prestige, and the honour of England. What had been the effect of it? It appeared, from the discussion on what took place some time ago on the Chinese coast, that the origin of Lieutenant Gurdon's interference was the insult which had been received by a British subject, who had been robbed of a large amount of property.
MR. CHAIRMANsaid, he did not see how the question of the reduction of the foreign squadrons was involved in the present Vote.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, the reduction of the foreign squadrons necessarily involved the reduction of the working power at the Admiralty, and the result was that our countrymen were in peril in every part of the globe. Look at the murders in Greece. He had the authority of Admiral Hobart for saying that, had not our squadron been withdrawn from Greek waters, these lives would not have been sacrificed; he believed this to be the fact. Friends of the Secretary to the Admiralty, or of the First Lord, were now employed to do what the Admiralty officers did before. Then the Estimates had been increased to pay a higher salary to the Chief Constructor of the Navy, and it was stated that Mr. Reed was also to receive a bonus of £5,000. This statement took him completely by surprise; for he had gone through the list of the Chief Constructor's ships with a distinguished naval officer, and all were failures, though in some respects the Monarch might be a success. Mr. Reed first of all constructed short vessels; but now his ships were only 50ft. shorter than the longest ever built in the service, and he had an enormously increased amount of power to force them through the water. Had he built ships which were a credit to the country, £5,000 would be a very small sum to grant him, and even £20,000 would not be too much. We had the Monarch and the Captain, and between the types of those two vessels would be the Navy of the future. Mr. Reed had educated himself at the cost of the country, which had spent a great deal more money upon him than 1653 it had in educating the Conservative party. The present Government talked about economy; but they drove from the country a set of unfortunate creatures, desolating their homes, and leaving their wives and children mourning. As the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh) said to the First Minister of the Crown, the poor Irishman had nothing to look forward to but America or the workhouse. An elaborate Bill had been passed for the purpose of compelling landlords in Ireland to give seven years' rent to the tenants they ejected; but the unfortunate dockyard labourers who were driven from their employment got nothing but a passage to America in a transport. Yet the present was styled a Liberal Government, although it had reduced our dockyard establishments to such a point that they could not fit out two line-of-battle ships. For his own part, he should not vote for the reduction of any of the Votes, but would endeavour to make an increase in a great many of them.
§ MR. NORWOODsaid, he thought the Committee ought not to discuss a question of this importance at the wrong time and in an irregular way.
§ MR. GOURLEYsaid, he was of opinion that the matter of the Transport Service might be better discussed on Vote 17, and he was willing to limit his proposed reduction to the demand for the Constructors of the Navy. It would, however, be for the Committee to decide on this point.
§ MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he was surprised at the irregularities of the Committee, which had rendered it necessary for him to see what was the Vote under discussion. He discovered that it was an extremely important one, and one, moreover, which would enable him to make certain remarks which might not be acceptable to the present, nor, indeed, to any Government. The Vote was headed as follows:—"Estimate of the sum which will be required in the year ending upon the 31st of March, 1871, to defray the expenses of the Admiralty Office, £159,368." Upon that Vote he desired to express his humble but strong sentiments with reference to the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. Over and over again he had said that that Board was wrongly constituted, and although, of course, he did not wish to charge his party and his Friends with 1654 anything improper, he must confess that, in his judgment, some of the officers on that Board were not required. He hoped he should not be personally offensive, for he would name no names. He first referred to the First Lord, who had a house and £4,500 a year. Well, he must assume that every First Lord deserved that. Then came the Senior Naval Lord with a house and £1,500, which was a very small sum for an able Naval Lord. For family as well as national reasons he was attached to the Royal Navy, and consequently expressed his opinion, perhaps, a little too strongly. The Third Lord and Controller received £1,500; the Junior Naval Lord £1,000, without a house; the Civil Lord the same. Then there was an allowance of £400 to the Third Lord and the Junior Naval Lord in lieu of a house. He had often been asked by persons out of that House—"What is the Board of Admiralty? How is it constituted? How much money do its members get out of the finances of the country? Are they overpaid or not, and what is their business?" To questions like these he confessed his inability to give a satisfactory reply, and he had never heard one given. For a long time, however, he and others had been of opinion that the Board was badly constituted. At the commencement of the Session his right hon. Friend who was at the head of the Board endeavoured to explain the position he occupied; but he did not quite understand his right hon. Friend's statement. He started by saying—and it must be acknowledged that he was most anxious to do his duty for the benefit of the Navy—that he was responsible for everything; but that there were officers who discharged their duties under him, but what those duties were, and how they were distributed, remained unexplained. Now, he ventured to say that the noble Lord (Viscount Milton) who was so dreadfully attacked in the newspapers a short time ago, in consequence of the course he pursued when a Question he put to the head of a Department was answered by a subordinate, was substantially in the right. Being connected, as he was, with a dockyard community (Devonport), and having formerly represented a borough in which there were two dockyards and one steam factory, he watched with the greatest anxiety the proceedings of the Board of Admiralty. He desired that it should be ascertained 1655 how the Board was constituted, and why there should be so many members of it—some of them naval officers and others civil functionaries. In his humble judgment there were too many officials at the Board of Admiralty. There was an excellent Secretary to the Board, who rose and answered Questions in the House, and there were several others besides. [Cries of "Move, move!"] His hon. Friends below the Gangway might cry out "Move"; but the time had not yet come to adopt that course. The Board of Admiralty had, in his opinion, been extremely rash, and their mismanagement of the dockyards in some matters was perfectly frightful. ["Oh, oh!"] You exclaim "Oh, oh!" I say the more you say it the better pleased I am, because I am satisfied that the men who now say "Oh" will, when they go home, say "Right, right." The present state of things in our dockyards was the result of the reckless economic spirit of the age. The Government said there must be a decrease of expenditure, and that the Army and Navy Estimates must be cut down. A number of men in our dockyards and steam factories were, in consequence of that policy, discharged. Some of those on the establishment in the dockyards were entitled to pensions; but they complained that they were suddenly discharged before their full period of service had expired, and thus the pensions awarded were inadequate. In the factory at Keyham the discharged men were not so entitled, and to them was given what was called a gratuity of £5, or £10, or £15. A great many useful men had in that way been discharged, who might easily have been retained for the benefit of the public service. The Admiralty had already been asked in that House why they did not break up in the public dockyards those ships which were useless, and thus afford employment for those poor unhappy and hard working artizans who were driven out of work? The Admiralty had never answered that question, although it had been shown that the course he advocated would be the most profitable one to pursue. Why, he was informed that breaking up these ships would give employment to those distressed men for two or three years. He also wished to ask why ships should be built by private contractors when the public dockyards were almost empty, and if he did not get a specific answer to 1656 that question he would move for a Return on the subject. Members of the Government might be received with cheers when they rose to reply to such questions; but a time might come when they would not have to support them so large a majority as they had at present. [Laughter] Hon. Members below the Gangway, whose object appeared to be to disparage and destroy national establishments for the benefit of private contractors and speculators, might laugh, but he did not trust them; he never had trusted them, and never would. As to ships built by private contract, he had seen them stripped, and had seen the "dummies"—or short bolts—and knew all their other faults. It was well known that the precautions taken to secure sound materials and good workmanship were unavailing, and that all the vigilance of Government surveyors might be baffled. He supported the principle of maintaining public dockyards, and considered it would be an evil day when they were abolished, and the work which was now done in them given to private contractors.
§ MR. SAMUDAsaid, he was of opinion that the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. M. Chambers) should not have been made, as they referred to ships which were built 40 years since. As to the iron-clads which had been constructed of recent years, they were stated by those who preceded the present Board of Admiralty to be in every respect as perfect as any vessels that had ever been built in the public dockyards, and depreciatory statements should not be made by an hon. Member who had not the slightest knowledge of the subject. In reference to the Vote, he regretted that the office of Consulting Engineer had been abolished, for, having had an acquaintance for nearly 30 years with Mr. Murray, the gentleman who had occupied that post, he was convinced that the country did not possess a more faithful or more useful public servant. He desired to know what were the duties of the Professional Secretary to the Chief Constructor, an office of which he had not previously heard. If it meant a legal adviser for the purpose of drawing contracts, it was a work of supererogation, for there had been no contracts, as the Chief Constructor had issued no contracts since the present Government had been in Office. He (Mr. Samuda) also wished for some explanation as to 1657 why the sums received for turtle were not credited in the Estimates? Having lately visited a tavern in the City he found a place as large as that chamber filled with water tanks, and having about 200 turtle swimming in it. Having asked the landlord how he obtained such a large supply, he was informed that they were purchased on the arrival of Her Majesty's ships from abroad, and that the house had a regular contract with the Lords of the Admiralty. But there was no notice of any such receipts in the Estimates. Looking again at the figures of Admiralty office expenses, it would seem that the management expenses amounted to £160,000. A reference to another portion of the Estimates would show that the expenditure in the building of ships, materials, and wages was to amount to £726,000, so that the cost of management on this score was no less than 22 per cent. Hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, who were never tired of making professions of economy, should remember that it had been shewn that the expenses of management ought not to exceed half that sum.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he would remind the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that the expenses on account of management stood at £183,000 only two years ago. As one who had formerly found fault with this sum, he must express his satisfaction at witnessing its steady and gradual reduction.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he desired some explanation with reference to the assistance which the Vice Admiral and the Rear Admiral of England were expected to render to the Admiralty. Hitherto those posts, together with that of the Governor to the Greenwich Hospital, had been regarded as sinecures, and had been conferred as recognitions of merit upon officers of distinction. At the commencement of the year the post of Rear Admiral of England was conferred for distinguished services upon Sir William Hope Johnstone, and at the end of February, after having held the office six weeks, that gallant officer found that he was to be removed. Now, the office had never been in the gift of the Admiralty; it had been a patent office, and had been voided only by promotion to Admiral of the Fleet or by death. It was perfectly true that Sir William Hope Johnstone had suffered no pecuniary loss, because the 1658 amount of his salary had been made up to him in the shape of retired pay; but he had been deprived of a distinguished office, and could not help feeling that a slur had been cast upon him. He called on the First Lord of the Admiralty to protest; but he was informed that, in consequence of the new scheme of retirement, it had been thought right to deprive him of his post of honour and of his patent office. A correspondence, which the right hon. Gentleman (the First Lord of the Admiralty) would perhaps consent to lay upon the Table, had passed between him and the right hon. Gentleman, and in that correspondence, which related to a conversation between Sir William Hope Johnstone and the right hon. Gentleman, it appeared that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that these posts must be held by officers on the active list, because they might be called upon to perform duty in case any casualty occurred at the Admiralty. But if it was necessary that these posts should be filled by officers on the active list, in order that the vacancy might be supplied, in case the First Lord of the Admiralty were drowned, the Vice Admiral of England, who had not been superseded, was eight years older than Sir William Hope Johnstone. There was another matter, too, upon which the right hon. Gentleman ought to give some explanation. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that last year the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) challenged the conduct of the Admiralty in reference to the discharge of Admiralty clerks. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, said—he was quoting from Hansard—
No clerks have been discharged against their will. In several cases there was hesitation and some correspondence; but ultimately I believe that in every case the retirement was voluntary under the terms approved by theTreasury."—[3 Hansard, cxcvii. 413.]The right hon. Gentleman led the House to understand that such was the policy of the Admiralty. But, far from this being the case, compulsory retirements of a very grievous character had occurred; and to two of these he thought it right to call attention. The cases were those of Mr. Henry Dundas and Mr. James, two officers of great distinction, of whom the Admiralty determined to get rid, by hook or by crook. At the time that he himself was at the Admiralty no officers 1659 performed their duty better than those two gentlemen. Mr. Henry Dundas was the Private Secretary to Sir Alexander Milne, had been Private Secretary to Sir Frederick Grey, and from the time of his appointment had always held the highest character. Mr. James was an officer of even higher rank, at the head of the Gunnery department, and as he (Sir John Hay) had been superintendent of that special branch of Admiralty business, he was brought into frequent contact with Mr. James, and received from him the greatest assistance in carrying out the various and complicated duties of that department—assistance and good services which he was glad to have that opportunity of acknowledging. Mr. James, however, and Mr. Dundas were pitched upon and endeavoured to be got rid of, and, having first been pressed and cajoled, to retire, were at last threatened if they refused to do so. They, however, had no wish to quit a service which they liked, and the duties of which they performed admirably; and building their hopes on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in his place in Parliament that no clerks had been discharged against their will, they not unnaturally supposed that no clerks would be so dismissed. After several attempts to get rid of those gentlemen, who declined to go, a Report was obtained—how, he did not know—stating, in vaguish terms, that they were the two most incompetent officers of their rank in the Admiralty. This, he ventured to state, was certainly not his own experience of those gentlemen while his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) or his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) were in Office; both of them were officers of high rank and capacity, and one especially had held the post of Private Secretary to the First. Naval Lord in successive Administrations. When the Report was made there were renewed attempts—he really must say—to bully these two gentlemen out of the Service. Mr. Dundas went; but Mr. James was not the man to do so. He sought the advice of his solicitor, and was advised to summon the officer who had drawn up the Report to a Court of Law for defamation of character, and made arrangements for summoning the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty and other official personages as witnesses. 1660 Thereupon he was sent for to the right hon. Gentleman's room and begged to stay in the service. He consented to do so, and was in the service at this moment. These were cases freely mentioned in private conversation; they were cases known to his right hon. Friends who had held the Office of First Lord of the Admiralty; and they were cases that ought to be known to the Committee and the country. The public service could not be conducted if gentlemen, who had devoted their lives to it, were to be hustled and bundled about in this way and threatened to be turned out of it, being only relieved when, they turned round and began to take the law of the authorities. Last year there was a newly-fledged department called the "Purchase and Contract department," of the working of which exceedingly little was known, but what little transpired was very much to its detriment. Under the old contract system, though high prices might sometimes be paid, the articles were, at least, according to sample, were faithfully delivered, and the public had the advantage of tenders. The new system, however, was to make the purchases direct, and through a single firm, Messrs. Shaw and Thomson, of 150, Leadenhall Street. There could be no mistake as to the name, for he had in his hand a dozen printed papers of the Admiralty, sent to him by different firms in the City, with the names of Messrs. Shaw and Thomson upon them. These were the gentlemen who showed great consideration to the Admiralty when they made the blunder of selling all their good anchors, and allowed the Admiralty to have them back again. The question was asked at the time whether they were to have anything for it, and this was denied. Immediately afterwards it was said that they had been made the agents through whom the Admiralty would, in future, obtain their contracts. This also was denied; but the printed forms which he had in his hand as to different articles required by the Admiralty left very little doubt upon this point. Messrs. Shaw and Thomson accordingly were agents or had been agents for a sufficient time to recoup themselves for the services rendered to the Admiralty in re-selling them their iron anchors. Notice was given of a Question addressed to the Secretary to the Admiralty, a gentleman of great commercial experience, and him- 1661 self an employer of labour, as to the terms on which those gentlemen had been employed to purchase articles for the public service. But although it was the Secretary to the Admiralty who was challenged, the First Lord immediately rose and said that it was entirely against the Secretary's wish, and only at his own urgent request, that these gentlemen had been employed as private agents to make purchases for the Government. Take another instance of the working of the new Purchase department. There was a colliery in Wales called the Hirwain Colliery, the coal of which might be applied to certain uses, but was of a dangerous and inferior character, and was condemned by the proper officers as unfit to be used in the Navy from the probability that ships carrying it would be set on fire. No prudent shipowner would allow it to be used on board his vessels. Nevertheless, 18,000 tons of that coal were received at Sheerness, having been purchased at a lowish rate. Coals for the Admiralty were no longer bought by tender, but by a friend of the Secretary to the Admiralty, a Mr. M'Culloch, who, it was understood, received 3d. a ton from the Admiralty for every ton of coals received by them—what he might receive at the other end, of course, nobody knew. He had been informed that there was a gentleman of the same name as Mr. M'Culloch who was the manager of the Hirwain Colliery; he did not know whether they were related in any way, but Hirwain coal was certainly bought by Mr. M'Culloch. Some of the coal so purchased was placed on board the Megœra, and when on the Line she caught fire and might have been lost owing to the fuel that she carried. A Return had been moved for upon the subject, but the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give a much larger Return than was asked for, and it had not yet been produced; he was, therefore, obliged to make this statement upon what he believed to be very tolerable authority. It was well known that in the different Government establishments the supply of coal was kept down to the lowest quantity, and that when the officers of the yards were compelled to make purchases for the immediate necessities of the public service, Mr. M'Culloch had been sent down to find fault. He would give an instance. When the right hon. Gentleman opposite took command last 1662 year of the Channel Fleet, an order was sent to Pembroke Dockyard to have a supply ready for the fleet. The Storekeeper, a most excellent officer, found that the stock of coals was not sufficient for the requirements of the fleet, which was to arrive next day, and he accordingly applied to the Captain Superintendent, who directed him to procure the supplies necessary for the squadron. The right hon. Gentleman duly arrived with his fleet; the Storekeeper was complimented for his energy and activity by the First Sea Lord, who accompanied the vessels, the necessary supplies were taken on board, the fleet sailed, and the Storekeeper thought that there was an end of it. But the other Board in London and the Secretary to the Admiralty immediately found fault with what had been done, they refused to pay for the coal which had been purchased, and Mr. M'Culloch was sent down to complain, and he supposed to inquire why he had not received his threepences. Since then the Storekeeper had been dismissed—or retired, or whatever the phrase was—and he (the Storekeeper) was quite ready to give any hon. Gentleman, who might desire it, all necessary information upon the subject.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would endeavour to answer in a few words the various questions which had been put to him. And, first, he might be permitted to congratulate his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. M. Chambers) on having found the speech which he forgot the other day, when Vote 6 of the Navy Estimates, to which it related, was under discussion. His hon. Colleague, however, in the representation of Devonport (Mr. J. D. Lewis) then made a speech precisely to the same effect, which was very fully answered at the time, and therefore it was as unnecessary as it would be irregular for him to answer these statements again, beyond saying that he believed the course of the Government could be fully justified. The hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir John Hay) had asked three or four very pertinent questions. The first was as to the amount of superannuations and pensions granted to officers at the Admiralty on reduction; and the hon. Baronet suggested that these exceeded the amount saved by the smaller establishment. Even if this were so, as the amount of such pensions must fall off 1663 every year, it would be no argument against the reduction in the civil establishment; but he had on a previous occasion shown that, allowing for pensions, there had been a large net saving; and he had no means at hand of cheeking the hon. Baronet's calculation. He would, however, willingly lay any Return on the subject on the Table, which might elucidate the case. The hon. and gallant Baronet had put to him a second Question of which he had had no Notice, and, therefore, he was not able to answer it with great minuteness. He would, however, give the best reply he could from memory. Among the officers recently retired from age was a very gallant officer in his 72nd year, Sir William Hope Johnstone, who a few days before had been appointed to the ancient office of Rear Admiral of the United Kingdom. This retirement necessitated his vacating this office, and the hon. Baronet opposite says that the gallant officer called on him (Mr. Childers), and that he told him he could not retain the office because when the Admiralty went to sea they might be drowned, and he might be called on to discharge their functions, which he could not do if retired. He need not assure the House that he had not said anything so absurd; and if Sir William Hope Johnstone had not understood what he had actually said, he would willingly try to make matters clearer to him. The fact was that great consideration, in point of money, had been given to this officer. Although at his advanced age retirement was obligatory on him, a special clause had been inserted in the Order in Council allowing him to receive not only the improved rate of half-pay, but, for life, the full salary of his office—a privilege which the provisions of the Order of 1866 would not have allowed to any officer coming on the list after its date. And here he might remark, parenthetically, that to avoid for the future this inconvenience three additional good service pensions, to be held after retirement, had been substituted for the salaries of these nominal offices. When Sir William Hope Johnstone called on him he was satisfied that on the pecuniary question he had been fairly treated, and that he would receive the full value of his sinecure, but he urged that he ought to retain its title. He (Mr. Childers) had explained to him that the duties assigned to him by the patent, 1664 although he would probably never be called upon to perform them, were such as could only be performed by an officer on the Active List. That was the whole story, and there was really nothing in it. Then the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir John Hay) brought forward the case of two clerks in the Admiralty—Mr. James and Mr. Dundas. First of all he said that last year he (Mr. Childers) had stated that at that time no clerk had been absolutely forced out of the office under retirement, although some had gone voluntarily, and he assumed, therefore, that it was implied or that he had said under no circumstances whatever would any clerk be required against his will to retire. Now he never had said anything so preposterous. They were greatly reducing the number of clerks, and it might of course happen that some gentlemen, though offered a handsome compensation, would not be willing to retire. But what had been the result? With very few exceptions indeed—he thought the whole number was not more than three or four—all had been retired without any serious objections. In the Secretary's Office a considerable reduction in numbers had to be made. The selection of clerks for that reduction was made on the responsibility of the officers placed over the clerks—the Secretary and Chief Clerk. They recommended that those particular officers should be reduced whose services might be spared with great advantage to the public service. All these took the retirement in the Secretary's Office except two. What was done with respect to them? First of all he called in the responsible officers to report the reasons which led them to recommend that they should be retired against their wishes. He then referred that Report to Lord Camperdown's Committee, which, as he had explained on a former occasion, dealt with all these cases. On Mr. James and Mr. Dundas objecting that this Committee had not fully considered their case, he was himself so anxious that no possible injustice should be done that he determined to hear the whole facts himself. Two or three of his Colleagues met with him in his own room; those gentlemen came before them; they heard the evidence of each of the Secretary, Chief Clerk, and several other officers under whom they had served, and the decision come to was that in the case of Mr. 1665 James, although his conduct had not been uniformly satisfactory, the case against him was not sufficient to retire him against his will; but, in the case of Mr. Dundas, it was sufficient, and he was retired. With regard to Mr. James having summoned him, or given notice that he was about to summon him, to prove a libel against some inferior officer, he could only say this was the first time he had heard of it. With regard to the concluding remarks of the hon. and gallant Officer he should leave the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Baxter) to answer them. He would only say that the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir John Hay) was quite mistaken in what he had stated as to the coaling of the Channel Fleet. The arrangements for that purpose had been entirely satisfactory, and there was no foundation for the statement which had been made on the authority of some superannuated officer. Then, as to the question put by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) with regard to the employment of shipping agents, when they came to Vote 17 the subject would more conveniently be discussed. That arrangement had been made after full consideration, and in accordance with the practice of all men of business; it was only for one year, and if it was not found to work well it would be altered. He now came to his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone). He was sure his hon. and gallant Friend did not seriously expect him to follow him in all his remarks; but there were one or two he must refer to. His hon. and gallant Friend said the Turkish Admiral had stated that if we had not reduced the fleet in Greek waters, the recent deplorable murders of British subjects would not have been committed. He was not aware that so naked an opinion had been expressed by Hobart Pasha, and he must demur to that gentleman being considered quite impartial on the question. But, as a matter of fact, the arrangement of their Predecessors in Office with regard to the disposition of the Mediterranean Fleet had been adhered to. Not a ship had been removed, and its disposition was now as then made by that very excellent officer, Sir Alexander Milne, whose arrangements were entirely approved by both the Foreign Office and the Admiralty. So that the whole of his hon. Friend's remarks on that subject fell entirely to the ground. 1666 Then his hon. and gallant Friend said that Mr. Reed had only built one good ship, and that they had paid pretty well to educate him. Now, he was bound to say that Mr. Reed, by common consent, and not in the opinion of one Admiralty alone, had been a most successful shipbuilder. The Monarch was not his only success; and it was the late Board of Admiralty that recommended £5,000 should be paid to him. With regard to the complaint of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda), he would say the officer who formerly held the post of Engineer at Portsmouth had been appointed by the late Board to a sort of roving inspection of all the other dockyards. This arrangement did not work well, and when the offices of Master Shipwright and Engineer were amalgamated, Mr. Murray was brought to London, combining with the office of General Inspector of Factories and Workshops the office of Consulting Engineer. But the work proposed to be done by Mr. Murray in connection with the Factory and Workshop Accounts was found to be more suitable for Mr. Fellows, the Inspector of Dockyard Accounts; and the office of Consulting Engineer did not take up Mr. Murray's full time. He ceased, therefore, to be a salaried officer, but would be consulted on a fee when required. The duties of the officer who acted as Secretary to the Chief Constructor were distinctly stated in the Estimates of last year. The last point to which he must advert was the real question before the House. The hon. Member for Sunderland had moved a reduction of the Vote; but anyone acquainted with the business of the Department must be aware that it would be impossible for Mr. Reed to get through the work assigned to him if he had not the aid of Assistant Constructors. With respect to the whole staff Sir Spencer Robinson had been able, with the aid of Mr. Reed, to effect considerable economy.
MR. CORRYsaid, that with regard to the question of contracting for ships, there was a good deal of truth in the observations of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda); but they did not altogether accurately represent his (Mr. Corry's) views. What he said three years ago was that the work done by contractors was of admirable quality; but at the same time he added, that, as 1667 regards unarmed ships, he gave the decided preference to those built in the Government dockyards, and that though in the first instance the contract-built ships might be cheaper, yet, when the cost of them was accurately cast up during their whole life for repairs and other matters, the non-contract ships were really less expensive. With regard to the removal of Mr. Murray, he entirely disagreed with the First Lord of the Admiralty when he spoke of Mr. Fellows being an admirable substitute for Mr. Murray. The right hon. Gentleman might as well have said that he was a good substitute for Mr. Reed. As much science was required in selecting steam engines as in constructing men of war. [Mr. CHILDERS: I stated that Mr. Fellows analyzed the accounts.] Something more than the examination of accounts was necessary, and it was a most alarming consideration that at this moment there was no officer at the Admiralty competent to advise the Board as to the selection of designs and specifications of engines for ships of war. He defied the right hon. Gentleman to name any gentleman so competent to perform that duty as Mr. Murray was. Of all the many mistakes which the present Board of Admiralty had committed, the removal of Mr. Murray from his responsible duties was, perhaps, the greatest. Mr. Murray regarded his removal as a great slur on his professional character, and it was to be hoped that the First Lord of the Admiralty would make a public declaration of the high estimation in which the Admiralty held that gentleman's abilities, and that his removal was not occasioned by any fault of his own. Mr. Murray was told that he would be consulted on important occasions; but those important occasions had never arisen, and it would be satisfactory to Mr. Murray to know whether or not he had any relation with the Admiralty. With regard to the Purchase department, every hon. Member must know that under the present system of purchasing there was very great and widespread suspicion that justice was not done to mercantile men. He did not mean to deny that Mr. M'Culloch was a most honourable man; but the system was one which did not inspire confidence. It was difficult to see how the old system had been improved upon. It was true that under the contracting arrangement the disgraceful case in which Mr. Gam- 1668 bier was concerned occurred; but that person, although he tried to humbug the contractors, had no more power to influence their acceptance than a doorkeeper of the House of Commons.
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, the present was not the time for entering on a defence of the purchase system, and if upon every Vote everything connected with the Admiralty was to be discussed, the Navy Estimates would never be got through; but he was prepared to answer one or two remarks made by the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry). The first statement was that the appointment of Messrs. Hogg and Robinson to the Transport department was one which exercised an influence on the Purchase department, and for which the Purchase department was responsible. The appointment of these gentlemen, however, had nothing to do with the purchase and sale of goods; it was simply an arrangement for the shipping of goods in the Transport department. The matter was one which was pressed upon him by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers), who, however, deferred, attention to it until the arrangements for the purchase and sale of goods had been placed on a proper footing; and then his right hon. Friend determined to recur to the question of the shipping of goods in the Transport department, and they together arrived at the conclusion that it was expedient to employ a gentleman to advise their gallant Friend at the head of the department (Admiral Mends) in connection with the shipping of small quantities of goods. What that had to do with the Purchase department he could not understand. It was stated that, instead of tenders being advertised for and purchases being made in the open market, purchases were made by friends of his; and that he indignantly denied. No friend of his, no gentleman he had ever spoken to, had been employed by the Admiralty in connection with the Purchase department. He was deeply indebted to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House for calling upon him and speaking to him in the Lobbies in order to give him excellent advice as to the best mode of securing supplies; but not a man of his acquaintance had been employed in any way in connection with the Purchase department of the Admiralty. He thought the attack that had been made was quite uncalled for, and he ap- 1669 pealed to the House and the country against such charges as had been made against him by the hon. and gallant Gentleman with a recklessness which passed his comprehension. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone, on the last day of February, brought several charges of the gravest possible nature against him in connection with the Purchase department, every one of which he shattered to the winds.
MR. CORRYsaid, he brought no charge; but he made statements, which were contradicted at the time, but which had since been confirmed on inquiry of the principal officers of the dockyards. He suggested that the hon. Member should wait until they came to Vote No. 10.
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman attacked him, pronounced the Purchase department a failure, and, when he was about to reply, told him to wait until they came to another Vote.
MR. CORRYsaid, no Member of the Government had a right to regard what had been said as a personal attack.
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) had stated that he had employed friends of his own in the Purchase department.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to explain that he merely said this was the general report out-of-doors, which he thought the hon. Gentleman ought to have an opportunity of answering in the House.
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, he was not afraid of his character out-of-doors. He did not complain of criticism of the management of the Purchase department; but he did complain of insinuations of this kind, which, everyone connected with the Purchase department knew to be quite baseless. He was quite ready to wait until they came to Vote No. 10; but he complained that a discussion which they had expected to-night had not come on because the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place at the proper time. When it came on he was quite prepared to show the House and the country that in the past the management of the purchases and sales of stores for the Admiralty Department had been unbusiness-like and absurd. Having disposed of two charges, he now came to the third, which was that they had been guilty of using Hirwain coal. This was a hard anthracite coal of South Wales, which 1670 ought not to be used by itself, but which was one of the very best coals for mixing with bituminous coal. In one or two instances it was naturally complained of by officers of the dockyards. A gentleman connected with the Purchase department, whom he never saw or heard of until he became Secretary to the Admiralty, was sent down to show the officers how it ought to be used and ought to be mixed with bituminous coal; and in both instances the Report was that, having had the matter explained to them, the mixture was highly satisfactory. With respect to the Megœra, he regretted that the Papers were not on the Table; but when produced they would not support any of the accusations which had been made.
§ MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he wanted to have a reply to his question, why mere useless ships were not broken up in the public dockyards?
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the matter was one of expediency and policy, depending upon many circumstances which could not be stated in reply to a question. Many were broken up in the public dockyards; others were sold to be broken up elsewhere. The whole matter was fully discussed in a Committee which sat the year before last; and the result was, the passing of an Act of Parliament last Session to enable the Government to sell a larger number of ships than they could formerly dispose of, but which put an end to the system under which the Government sold the ships, and then had to buy back the part of them which they required. It was he who recommended the retirement of Mr. Murray; but it was his intention to carry out the arrangement under which Mr. Murray retired, and which was, that from time to time he should be employed as Consulting Engineer in special inquiries for which he was specially fitted. His opinion of Mr. Murray was expressed by the fact that he had recommended, him for the distinction of the Bath.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he did not propose to move the reduction of the Vote; but the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not explained the working of the Purchase department, and he therefore gave notice that, if there was time this Session, and, if not, next Session, he would move for a Committee to inquire into the working of it.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had been referred to, and it had been stated that it was understood personal friends of his had been employed.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, it was a very easy thing when you heard a cock-and-bull story to damage your opponent by saying it was reported of him, and when challenged to confess to knowing nothing about it; but, while he was responsible for naval affairs, he would not receive such imputations without indignantly contradicting them.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, the Government must see that the course they were pursuing was completely upsetting the old principle of competition, and involving them in difficulty and trouble. All that was said and done by persons in the Purchase department was known in the City and everywhere else; they were watched from the time they got up until they went to bed; and whenever one of them said anything about business it was supposed to have reference to a Government contract. The hon. Member (Mr. Baxter) said hon. Members offered him advice, no doubt commending assorted samples of this or that; but that was not the way the business of the country ought to be carried on. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) and the hon. Gentlemen opposite were honourable men, but no man could touch pitch and not be defiled; and they could, not under such circumstances, save themselves from imputations, as they could under the old system of open tender, with officers to test the samples. Admiral Cooper Key was evidently dismissed and visited with the vengeance of the Admiralty because he had rejected a quantity of bad stores, and then, when the Admiralty found there would be a disturbance, he was transferred to Malta. Nothing would persuade him that this was not so. The stores now supplied for the use of the Navy were of an inferior class to those formerly purchased. For example—there never was such smoky, bad coal as that which was now supplied, and which came from districts represented by hon. Gentlemen who loudly supported the Government. The Admiralty ought to employ patent fuel. The French bought the best Welsh coal. They 1672 crushed it, combining it with bitumen, and the result was more steam and better work, while the ships were kept clean. At present the smoke corroded the rigging, destroyed the clothing of the ship's company, and deteriorated every part of the ship. The present source of supply was maintained for nothing else than in order to get political capital for the Government. Again, the oil supplied was deficient both in lubricating and in illuminating power, and it clogged and destroyed the machinery. Where did this come from? Dundee.
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, that no oil now came from Dundee at all. When he took office he found that sperm oil was bought for the use of the Navy at £134 per ton; but he now bought colza oil at £38 15s. a ton.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he hoped to hear who bought this oil, and he would promise, on a future occasion, to lay before the House some data upon which statements had been made that evening.
§ MR. NORWOODsaid, he did not think any vindication of the character of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baxter) was necessary; but he awaited with some curiosity at a future time an explanation of the system of purchase now adopted at the Admiralty. In his opinion public tender, not private purchase, was the best system.
CAPTAIN STANLEYsaid, it was far from the intention of those near him to say anything which might occasion even temporary annoyance to the personal feelings of hon. or right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench; and he thought they should be glad of the opportunity of explaining as publicly as possible charges which, however groundless, had been generally circulated, and as to which the Committee were no doubt glad to receive a disclaimer. At the same time, he claimed for his side of the House full liberty upon Vote 10 of criticizing the Purchase department of the Admiralty.
§ MR. DYCE NICOLasked the First Lord whether, in the recent Admiralty arrangements, the period of service of the First and Third Naval Lords at the Board of Admiralty had been fixed; a subject of interest not only to the service, but to the public generally, as affording encouragement to meritorious officers of high standing, by holding out 1673 the prospect of being taken into the counsel of the First Lord; and which appeared particularly desirable at a time when appointments on shore were becoming more and more limited, and when an entire revolution was taking place in the construction of our ships of war and in their armaments, regarding which the advice of those who had been recently afloat, might be of much value in the administration of the Navy. He was satisfied that should the right hon. Gentleman think it consistent with his duty to intimate that these important offices were not, under ordinary circumstances, to be held for a longer period than three or four years, it would show the public that the patronage of the Admiralty was being used solely with a view to the public interest.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that no limitation, as to the period of service, had been put upon the selection of Her Majesty of officers to fill the appointment of First and Junior Sea Lords. The tendency, however, of what had been done with regard to retirement would be in the direction of such a limitation.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (2.) £196,955, Coast Guard Service, Naval Coast Volunteers and Naval Reserve.
§ MR. GRAVESsaid, that the sum now asked was very much the same as the sum taken last year; but he perceived by a foot-note that it was possible there might be some modification in consequence of the Report of the late Committee. If that Report were adopted in all its integrity, the effect would be very seriously to diminish the strength of the Naval Reserve. Hitherto the minimum height had been 5 feet 5 inches; but the Admiralty had power to make exceptions in certain cases. That power was now to be withdrawn, and the standard of 5 feet 5 inches to be observed for the future. From the Return appended to the Report, it appeared that one-fifth of the men introduced into the Naval Reserve of late years had been under 5 feet 5 inches; and, therefore, if the rule to which he had alluded were to be acted on, we should lose one-fifth of our Reserve Force. At least 30 per cent of the men in the Royal Navy were under 5 feet 5 inches; indeed, on board 1674 one of our large iron-clads, no less than 42 per cent were under that height. But taking the number at 30 per cent, these men, the blue-jackets serving on board of Her Majesty's ships, were now to be precluded from entering the Naval Reserve when their engagements in the Navy had terminated, and more valuable men could not be got. There was another point to which he wished to call attention. Hitherto the Admiralty had power to give special permission to the men of the Reserve to go on foreign voyages, if the nature of the voyage was stated in the permission. But it was proposed in the Report to confine the voyages of the Naval Reserve men to 12 months. The effect of that would be that owners in the long voyage trade to India and China would not take these men, because, before the end of the voyage, they would be obliged either to return or to break their leave, and incur the penalties of forfeiture under the regulations of the Reserve. Now, the men engaged in those voyages were the very cream of the Reserve, and this obligation, which it was proposed to impose upon them, was quite needless, and would be productive of much loss to the Reserve men. Then it was usual to have small batteries around the coast for drilling the men who joined the force; but now they would be obliged to go for their 30 days' drill into the large seaports, where they would spend their money away from their families, and be exposed to many temptations. He feared the best feeling towards the Reserve was not exhibited in this Report. For instance, while in one line it was said—"By Article 169 the Government is pledged never to discharge a man without his own consent, except for misconduct or physical disability," in the next line this most extraordinary recommendation occurred—"The Committee see no good ground for this being continued." Now, what was that but recommending a direct breach of faith with these men? The recommendations of the Commission with which the Reserve originated proposed that it should reach 30,000, but it had never exceeded 16,000; not because this limit was placed on the numbers, but because at this point men having suitable qualifications were exhausted; and it was now proposed, in the Estimates, that it should be the latter 1675 number—4,000, at least, less than it ought to be. But if the restrictions to which he had called attention were carried out in their integrity, it would be impossible to keep up a force of 16,000 men. We had, in our naval service afloat, 19,000 blue-jackets at most; then there were 16,000 in the Reserve, 4,000 Coastguard men, 3,000 Coast Volunteers, and 17,000 Marines, making, in all, a total force, effective and reserve, of 59,000 men. He had no desire to introduce national comparisons, but it was sometimes necessary, especially when he had been informed by authority which could not be doubted, that France had, in her effective Navy, 37,000 petty officers and able seamen, 140,000 seamen in her maritime inscription between 18 and 50 years of age, 55,000 of whom had passed three years in the Navy, and were liable at any moment to be called out, and the remainder, by an Imperial decree, could be called out in time of war. So that France had a Reserve of 140,000 men against our 23,000. He was glad a subsidiary Reserve had been adopted; he had long advocated one; and he should be glad to see the greater part of the fishermen brought into it. He would once more suggest that the Reserve should be raised to 20,000, and that a Vote should be taken for this number.
§ MR. BONHAM - CARTERsaid, he was not sorry to see an increase in the Vote for the Naval Reserve, and he believed the feeling of the country generally was in favour of that force. There was no doubt that the experimental squadron of last year, which brought together the Coastguard and the Naval Reserve, had most valuable results. Of course, they could not expect such an experiment to be made every year; but it was successful in every way, and certainly not the less so through the squadron being under the command of a very able officer. It was exceedingly important that that experiment should be followed by another under the eye of the same officer who conducted the first. With regard to what had been said as to that gallant Admiral having been almost dismissed for quarrelling with something that the Government had done in respect to stores, those who knew the position he had held in the scientific portion of the service, and how well he had conducted the various duties that had been intrusted to him, could not 1676 doubt of his high qualifications being perfectly recognized.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, no one appreciated more highly than he did the services of Admiral Cooper Key, and no one could have been more surprised than he was at what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir James Elphinstone) as to that distinguished officer's connection with the Admiralty. He knew of no officer who was more likely to rise to the highest position in the command of our fleets than Admiral Cooper Key. With regard to the Naval Reserve the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) seemed to think the suggestions of the Report he had referred to were rather restrictive and prejudicial to that force, instead of being, as they were intended to be, the very reverse. The Naval Reserve was started on a certain basis, and many relaxations were afterwards made in respect to that basis. What was proposed in the Report was to withdraw those relaxations to a certain extent, but also to effect some improvements greatly to the benefit both of the force and of the public. The hon. Gentleman had not seen the very considerable advantages held out to the force in respect to clothing, to prizes, and to other matters, all of which would tend to attract the men into the Reserve far more than they could possibly be repelled by the withdrawal of those relaxations of which the hon. Gentleman had taken an exaggerated view. With regard to the article about retirement and discharge, it was never intended that there should be any breach of faith or going back from the existing engagements with the men now in the force. There certainly was no hostility to the Reserve on the part of the present Board of Admiralty, who were entirely in harmony with the Board of Trade with respect to it, and there was no ground for any insinuation that the Admiralty were desirous of doing anything prejudicial to the force.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (3.) £69,267, Victualling Yards at Home and Abroad.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought they ought to have some explanation as to the condition in which the victualling yards now were, and also in reference to the changes to be made in consequence of the Earl of Camperdown's Report.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, it was plain, on the face of the Estimates, what was proposed to be done in respect to the management of the victualling yards. They would be placed hereafter in charge of the superintending storekeeper, with a sufficient number of subordinates officers attached to him to discharge the duty.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he was dissatisfied with the proposed arrangements in respect both to the victualling yards and the superintendence of the sick in hospital.
MR. CORRYsaid, while wishing to speak with every respect of the medical officers, he must say that the men felt that officers of their own branch of the service had more interest in all that concerned them; he could not, therefore, think the change a judicious one.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (4.) £57,730, Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he concurred in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry). One of the most unpopular changes made by the present Board of Admiralty was the taking away of the superintendents of hospitals.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (5.) £18,122, Marine Divisions.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not propose to take Votes 10, 11, 12, and 17 till to-morrow, at the Day Sitting. The Notices of Motion on going into Committee of Supply would, of course, come first to-morrow.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (6.) £16,678, Martial Law and Law Charges.
§
(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £118,791, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, as this Vote included the £5,000 proposed to be given to Mr. Reed, he should move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Sir James Elphinstone,)—put, and negatived.
1678§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he would take occasion to call attention to the sum proposed to be granted to Mr. Reed.
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought some explanation ought to be given on the subject of that grant.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had given an explanation of it three months ago. Mr. Reed, before he became a salaried officer of the Government, had done certain work for the Admiralty of a very valuable character, for which he had never been remunerated. Since he became an officer of the Government he had been very successful in designing iron-clads, but it was not until this year his success could be said to be established. On the first ground the late Board of Admiralty had recommended a grant to him, which the Treasury had not sanctioned. The present Board of Admiralty had renewed this recommendation on both grounds, and the Treasury had sanctioned it.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, that the late Treasury Board had refused to accede to the demand for a grant to Mr. Reed, on the ground that he had already received a valuable appointment as a reward for his services. The late Treasury were of opinion that the value of any service which Mr. Reed might have given might have been a ground for increasing his salary, but not for making him a grant of money. He did not know what were the additional services that Mr. Reed had performed since that period which entitled him to have the decision of the late Board set aside.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the grant was first asked for on the ground that the services of Mr. Reed, before he became an officer of the Crown, had not been properly remunerated. The success of Mr. Reed's labours with respect to the new iron-clads had only been proved since the late Admiralty Board had left office.
MR. CORRYsaid, he believed that the late Board of Admiralty had fully recognized both these claims of Mr. Reed.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he could see no distinction between the case of Mr. Reed and that of Colonel Boxer, to whom a grant had been refused by the War Office.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that his Predecessor in Office (Sir John Pakington) 1679 was averse to giving Colonel Boxer a gratuity, but was ready to increase his salary, and had adopted that course.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he thought that Mr. Reed's services should have been recognized in the same way as Colonel Boxer's had been.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that Colonel Boxer had received a gratuity the first time, but it had been refused on the second occasion.
§ MR. GRAVESsaid, he objected to the Vote, on the ground that it did not accurately define the particular services for which the gratuity asked for was to be given. Had the grant been asked for on the ground of the success of the two iron-clads last built by Mr. Reed he should have been quite willing that it should be made. The vessels, however, which were built by that gentleman when he was first appointed were great failures.
§ MR. SCLATER - BOOTHsaid, he thought the Vote if agreed to would prove a very bad precedent. The question was, whether the large sum of £5,000 was to be given to a very highly-paid officer in Her Majesty's service for doing his duty?
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that if the grant were to be made in respect of Mr. Reed's earlier patents, there were persons who said he was not entitled to the credit of them. When an officer was employed in Her Majesty's service all his labour should belong to his country. He wished to know how the gratuity was proposed to be apportioned for the different services rendered by Mr. Reed? Mr. Reed was now to be remunerated for services rendered eight years ago.
§ MR. CHILDERS, in reply, said, that the gratuity was asked for, not in respect of any particular patents, but in respect of services for which Mr. Reed had never been remunerated. The success of Mr. Reed's inventions had saved the country upwards of £1,000,000. Under these circumstances, the present Board of Admiralty felt that they were justified in endorsing and renewing the recommendation of their predecessors in Mr. Reed's favour. There were many precedents for the course which had been adopted in the present instance.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, that a very important question of principle was involved in this case—namely, whether, when 1680 the Government obtained the services of a gentleman for any particular Department, and paid him for the whole of his time, he should, because he was successful, have a gratuity in addition to his salary? That was the question raised in Colonel Boxer's case. The First Lord of the Admiralty mixed up what was done with Mr. Reed before he had a salary and what was done afterwards. He was appointed to his office because he showed ability in constructing ships, and the emoluments of the office was his reward; the late Treasury Board decided not to give him any gratuity, and he (Mr. Hunt) had heard of no reason since to justify doing so.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he entirely agreed that, as a general principle, public servants remunerated by salaries should not have a gratuity; but it was as unwise to make no exceptions to this rule as it would be to make frequent exceptions.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he found no fault with the construction of Mr. Reed's ships, but with their formation, especially as regards draught.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.