PERSONAL EXPLANATION. (Hansard, 21 March 1872)

§ MR. HUNT
said, he wished to call the attention of the House to some remarks which had been made on Monday night by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), when speaking on the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry). The right hon. Gentleman alluded to a transaction connected with the application of the Admiralty to the 404 Treasury in the case of Mr. Reed, and was reported to have spoken as follows:— When Mr. Reed resigned towards the end of July, the Board was very frightened, and passed a Minute at once, to the effect that a letter should be written to the Treasury requesting that a considerable sum of money should be given to him. Upon this, to use his own words, Mr. Reed said—'I foresaw, and said that the Treasury might object, and that for this and other reasons I would prefer to leave and go forward with my candidature. The Controller then told me that the First Lord of the Admiralty had seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that no objection would be made. Upon that assurance I acted, and but for that I should most certainly not have remained at the Admiralty and relinquished my Parliamentary prospects.' There is also on record a Minute by the Controller, saying that he told Mr. Reed nothing but what he was authorized by the Board to tell, and that Mr. Reed was fully justified in believing that the matter was settled and the arrangement finally made. Accordingly, on the 5th of August, 1868, a letter was written to the Treasury, to say that the Board of Admiralty thought Mr. Reed had established his claim, and to request that the sum of £5,000 should be paid to him. I do not know what part my right hon. Friend had in all this; but Mr. Reed, at any rate, was satisfied with the assurances given to him. Well, the thing went on; all August passed, all September passed, all October passed, but at the end of October, however, just before the General Election, he received a letter from the Treasury saying that their Lordships had considered the question, and must decline to allow the money. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say— About three months after the money had been clearly promised to Mr. Reed, that gentleman was told that the money could not be allowed, and it is not to be wondered at that he considered himself "jockeyed."—[3 Hansard, ccx. 173.] Now, he thought the impression which would be left on the mind of anyone who had heard or read the right hon. Gentlemen's speech would be that he (Mr. Hunt) had promised his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone that he would consent that a gratuity should be paid to Mr. Reed, and that afterwards, on an official communication being made to the Treasury, he declined. He did not mean to say the right hon. Gentleman did suggest that; but the quotation which he had read would naturally leave that impression. He had the clearest possible recollection of the application which had been made to him by his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone on behalf of Mr. Reed. That application was that Mr. Reed should receive a sum of £5,000 in respect of certain inventions which he had placed 405 at the disposal of the Admiralty. There was no ambiguity in the way in which he received the application. He told his right hon. Friend in the most positive terms that he objected to a gratuity being paid to Mr. Reed, giving as a reason that he thought Mr. Reed had been compensated for those inventions, which he had placed absolutely at the disposal of the Admiralty, by being appointed to a lucrative position in that Department. He added that, taking into account Mr. Reed's services to the country, he should be willing to receive afterwards an application for an increase of his salary; but he positively refused to grant the gratuity. His right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone asked him on a subsequent occasion to re-consider the matter, and he did so, adhering, however, to his original resolution. He could not conceive, therefore, how the Controller could have told Mr. Reed that he had assented to the granting of the application.

MR. CORRY
said, he desired to add a few words to what had been said by his right hon. Friend. He did not rise on Monday night to make any remark on what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), because, not having the circumstances fresh on his memory, he wished to ascertain with accuracy the real facts of the case. He afterwards asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to allow him to call to see the Papers necessary to refresh his memory, with which request he kindly complied. He accordingly called at the Admiralty the following day, and saw a précis of the Papers. He found that on December 13, 1866, Sir Spencer Robinson forwarded an application from Mr. Reed asking for remuneration for designs and inventions, increase of salary, and whether he would be entitled to superannuation under the existing Act of Parliament, he not having been called on to pass a Civil Service examination. On December 27 there was a Board Minute in the First Lord's, his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich's (Sir John Pakington's) handwriting, declining to entertain his claim to compensation, but recognizing his claim to increase of salary, and entirely concurring in the justice of putting an end to any doubt whether or not he was to be entitled to superannuation, and under- 406 taking to recommend an increase of his salary from £1,000 to £1,200 a-year, and that his superannuation should be on the highest scale allowable under the Act. Orders were given by the same Minute to apply to the Treasury accordingly. On the 7th of January, 1867, there was a letter from the Treasury sanctioning the increase of salary, and stating their readiness, when Mr. Reed should retire from the public service, to give full consideration to any representation which might be made recommending him for special pension. On the 9th of January, 1867, there was a Board Minute directing the solicitor to prepare a case for the Law Officers, as to Mr. Reed's claim in law for compensation for designs and inventions. On the 21st of January, 1867, the Law Officers advised that the Admiralty could not recognize any such claim.

MR. GILPIN
rose to Order. He wished to ask whether, when there was no Business before the House, the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in making a statement which might cause other hon. Members to make a counter statement?

§ MR. SPEAKER
I understand this to be a personal explanation, affecting the conduct not only of Members of this House but of others who have been in the public service. Great indulgence ought, under such circumstances, to be shown by the House.

MR. CORRY
said, he had gone over the preliminary part of his explanation, and he would now briefly refer to the charge of his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract. Mr. Reed renewed his application on the 1st of February, 1867, and on the 7th there was a Minute of the Board to the effect that it should receive careful consideration. Soon after his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) was appointed to the War Office and was succeeded by himself. His attention had not been called to the subject till August, 1868. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract had said that this case was an illustration of the way of doing business at the Admiralty under the old system; but the matter had nothing to do with the current business of the office. On the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Hunt) positively refusing to entertain the question, the matter dropped. 407 Mr. Reed subsequently pressed his claim very strongly, and he (Mr. Corry) was averse to losing his services, and again urged Mr. Reed's claims on the Treasury; but that was in no way connected, as had been insinuated, with the candidature of Mr. Reed for the borough of Pembroke. On renewing the application he received a decided refusal, and he (Mr. Corry) was at a loss to understand how Sir Spencer Robinson could have imagined that he had ever obtained the consent of the Treasury. All he could say for himself was that nothing could be more loyal than his own conduct in the whole matter. He had a personal interview with his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Disraeli), as well as with his right hon. Friend the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), and they discussed the question together, and he could do no more.

§ MR. CHILDERS
responded willingly to the appeal made to him by the two right hon. Gentlemen. He had never had the faintest intention of imputing to either of them the smallest breach of honour, or of saying that they had done anything discreditable in the slightest degree. If he had dreamt of doing so he would of course have given them full Notice. All he did, after the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) had made some remarks as to the changes made at the Admiralty, and the consequent confusion and misunderstandings which had resulted, was simply to give a recent instance which had under the old system occasioned great perplexity, and which had entirely arisen from want of union and harmony. Mr. Reed applied for a certain sum of money in January or February, 1867, and for 15 months no notice was taken of his application. Another application was made, and no notice was taken of that for three months. Mr. Reed then resigned office, and became a candidate for the borough of Pembroke. The Board then were alarmed and voted Mr. Reed a sum of money, and his reply was—"How can I know that the Treasury will give me the money?" He was assured by the Controller that the First Lord of the Admiralty had seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the latter had given his consent. On the strength of that assurance he withdrew his candidature, and returned to his office. Three months after, when it was too 408 late for him to stand for Pembroke, he was told that he could not have the money. Who made the mistake, he (Mr. Childers) did not know; but it exasperated Mr. Reed, and was most injurious to the public service, and did little credit to the idea of harmony claimed for Board action. But of course his two right hon. Friends had never dreamt of cajoling Mr. Reed, and he hoped that his assurance that he never intended to convey such an impression would be satisfactory to them.