§ MR. EYKYNasked the honourable and gallant Member for Stamford, If he will state the authority on which he founded a question to the First Lord of the Admiralty on Monday last, and, in the event of his not being prepared to state such authority, whether he will either substantiate or withdraw the implied reflection on a Department of the State and an honourable Member of this House?
§ SIR JOHN HAYIn reply, Sir, to the hon. Member for Windsor, I have to state that the Question which I addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty on Monday last was founded on the knowledge which I personally possessed as a Member of the late Board of Admiralty, that such a penalty had been imposed. It was imposed under circumstances which I need hardly say in no way reflected on the character of the Messrs. Baxter. But such penalties, if imposed, ought to be paid; and I have been informed, on the authority of gentlemen whose information I believe to be accurate, that this penalty and others have been remitted. In the three years, 1866–7–8, £12,889 was paid into the Exchequer for penalties and fines on naval contracts. In the two years, 1869–70, the last Returns on the Table, no penalties or fines have been received, but instead, £454 has been repaid to contractors. I have given Notice that I will move for a Return on Monday to explain this information, which is contained in the Navy Estimates. As my inquiry related to a question of fact, I have no accusation to substantiate, nor any reflection to withdraw.
§ MR. CHILDERSMr. Speaker, after the answer which has just been given by the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford to the Question addressed to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, I feel it incumbent on me, however disagreeable it may be to me, to make an appeal to you, Sir, and to this House; and if I should not have the absolute right to address you on this occasion, I trust I may have that indulgence extended to me which is never refused to one in my position, when a personal explanation is given in matters of this kind. The hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford asked on Monday last the following Question;— 36
Whether a penalty of £635 for non-fulfilment of a contract for Navy Duck was inflicted on the firm of Messrs. Baxter, of Dundee, by the Board of Admiralty, in November, 1868; and also whether it is true, as reported, that the fine has been remitted or paid, and at what date such remission occurred?Now, Sir, the House will notice the date in that Question. The hon. Baronet says that a fine was imposed on Messrs. Baxter of Dundee, in November, 1868. In November, 1868, the late Board of Admiralty was within a few days of their resignation; and they were succeeded a few days afterwards by the Board of Admiralty of which I had the honour to be a Member, and of which my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) was the Financial Secretary. It was the duty of my hon. Friend to deal with all the business connected with fines upon contracts, and my hon. Friend is the near relative of the members of the firm of Messrs. Baxter of Dundee. The purport of the Question, therefore, which the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty was this—that within his knowledge, as he now tells us, a fine was imposed upon the Messrs. Baxter by the Board of which the hon. Baronet was a Member, and was that fine remitted by the succeeding Government under the influence of the relative of the firm on which it had been imposed?
§ MR. CHILDERSThat, Sir, being the nature of the imputation thrown upon my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose by the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford, my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty answered the Question clearly. He told the hon. Baronet that his date was wrong. He told him that the fine of £630 was inflicted on the Messrs. Baxter, of Dundee, in November, 1867, a year before the date mentioned by the hon. Baronet in his Question. He went on to say that he never heard of such a report as that to which the hon. Baronet's Question alluded, nor had he ever seen such a report, nor had he been able to find any person who had, but he said—
If the hon. and gallant Baronet wishes the matter to be more thoroughly investigated, I would ask him to furnish me with that report which he has seen, or with the names of the persons who have authenticated it, because, unless formally authenticated, I am sure," said my right hon. Friend, "that the hon. Baronet would not have put this Question on the Paper.37 And he concluded by saying that—No orders have been received in the Accountant General's department as to the remission of the fine.Now, nothing could be more precise than that. There was no such fine imposed on Messrs. Baxter in November, 1868. There had been a fine imposed in November, 1867, the year before the late Government went out of office, and no order had been given as to the remission of this fine. A more complete contradiction of the hon. Baronet's statement I cannot conceive. Well, Sir, what is the position of matters now? The hon. Baronet has been distinctly challenged to give his authority. He has been told that his imputation on my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose is unfounded, and he says, forsooth, that he is going to move for a Return! I say after that contradiction, no Return would be of any value whatever. I have enjoyed the personal friendship of my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose for 12 years, and for two years I have been engaged with him in most intimate official relations. He is a man of the highest honour, and I appeal to those who know him on both sides of the House, whether they agree with him in opinion or no, whether they have ever known anything that could impeach his character. Under these circumstances, and because not only the honour of my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, but also the honour of the whole Department of the Admiralty, and of the Messrs. Baxter, of Dundee, is involved, I think I am justified in asking the hon. Baronet to do what I am about to suggest. I will, however, first read a telegram received from Messrs. Baxter, of Dundee. They say this—We think the facts should be brought out. We never even asked the present Administration for remission—feeling a delicacy in approaching them on a matter for which their predecessors were solely responsible.My right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) the other evening gave the most absolute contradiction to all the statements involved in the Question of the hon. Baronet; and I now, Sir, appeal to you whether, under these circumstances, that Question ought ever to have been put; and whether, now that it has been put, the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford ought not to withdraw altogether the imputation he has made on my hon. Friend, on the Admiralty, and on Messrs. Baxter?
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONI rise, Sir, to put one Question, the answer to which might save a good deal of trouble. It is quite clear a fine was imposed; I wish to know whether that fine has ever been paid?
§ MR. CHILDERSI am, Sir, in a position to state distinctly that the fine was paid, and I will give the date. On the 12th of November, 1867, the penalty of £630 9s. 4d. was abated from a sum of £708 due to Messrs. Baxter, for Navy duck delivered under contract. The difference between the £630 and what was due to Messrs. Baxter, was paid by a bill at that date, nearly a twelvemonth before the hon. Baronet ceased to be a Member of the Board of Admiralty. In January, 1868, Messrs. Baxter applied, on completion of the whole contract, for the remission of the penalty, on the ground that the difficulty experienced was occasioned by the inferior quality of the previous year's crop of flax. This was submitted to the Board by the Controller of Victualling, who was informed by letter, signed by Lord Henry Lennox, on the 28th February, 1868, that the penalty could not be remitted. The Accountant General reports that since that time no order has been received in that department for the remission of the penalty; and, as I have read from Messrs. Baxter's telegram—
They never even asked the present Administration for remission, feeling a delicacy in approaching them in a matter for which their predecessors were solely responsible.
§ SIR JOHN HAYIf the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had given as full and distinct a reply to my Question as I have now received from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I should have done then what I am now about to do—namely, to withdraw any imputation on the character of the Secretary of the Treasury, on whose character I had no intention whatever of throwing any imputation. But, at the same time, I shall ask for the Return of which I have given Notice, that the House may know what remissions have been allowed, and repayments made.
§ MR. CHILDERSI have one more Question to ask the hon. Baronet. He has stated distinctly that there was a report that this payment was remitted. He was challenged by my right hon. Friend to say who made it, when it was made, and where it was made. My 39 right hon. Friend stated distinctly that he was unable in any way to trace the existence of such a report. I call upon the hon. Baronet to say when and where, and by whom, this report was made?
§ SIR JOHN HAYSir, I do not know whether I may again address the House. I have already in the answer which I have given, and in reply to the hon. Member for Windsor, stated that I had the report from persons of character, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), if he is here, to say whether that statement is not accurate. I have said that I made that statement from my own information, and upon the information contained in the Navy Estimates.
MR. CORRYSir, the hon. and gallant Member for Stamford has called upon me to speak to a certain fact, and I shall merely speak to that fact, which is this—my hon. and gallant Friend did, to my knowledge, obtain the information to which he referred from a person on whose veracity and knowledge he had every reason to rely.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEI wish to point out that this repayment does not appear in the Estimates, and it is impossible to trace it in any way. My right hon. Friend tells us it was repaid from succeeding contracts.
§ MR. SPEAKERIt appears to me that, after the declaration of the hon. and gallant Member for Stamford, this discussion has gone far enough, and that further observations will be out of Order. I am bound to say, for my part, that when I saw the Question of the hon. Member on the Notice Paper for Monday last, it did not occur to me that it would affect the character or the conduct of any hon. Member of this House. If I had foreseen such a result, I should have advised the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in a friendly spirit, that the proper course to adopt when the conduct of an hon. Member is challenged, would be to propose a direct Motion, in order that full opportunity might be given both for the statement of the case on the one hand, and of the defence on the other.