HC Deb 09 June 1876 vol 229 cc1609-19
COLONEL BERESFORD

, in rising to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the Petition of Charles Frederic Henwood, naval architect, of 110, Cannon Street, in the City of London, said, he thought the evidence he should adduce would reveal a state of things which demanded inquiry. In his Petition the petitioner stated that he Is by profession a naval architect and practical shipbuilder, and was trained under his father, an eminent naval architect and master shipbuilder in Her Majesty's Service; and has been concerned in the construction of upwards of 70,000 tons of shipping, comprising wooden and iron armour-clad ships of war for the Admiralty and for foreign Governments; and has held the responsible position of chief constructor and manager of an extensive shipbuilding establishment; and all the vessels designed and built under your petitioner fulfilled their estimated results, whereby his reputation as a naval architect and practical shipbuilder was established, and he was well known and acknowledged by the profession and the public Press as an eminent constructor and shipbuilder. That in the years of 1866 and 1867 your petitioner invented plans whereby the obsolete but sound and strong line-of-battle ships might efficiently, promptly, and economically be converted into armour-plated, sea-going turret ships, to supply an urgent and temporary demand for increasing the number and power of the iron-clad Navy; and thereby also effect a saving of several millions sterling in the naval expenditure of the country, which plans received the approval of eminent naval officers and of Mr. Isaac Watts, C.B., formerly Chief Constructor of Her Majesty's Navy, the designer of the Warrior, Achilles, and Agincourt, and of most of the line-of-battle ships proposed for conversion. That your petitioner's plans were rejected by the Board of Admiralty as being unsuitable for Her Majesty's Service; but your petitioner was not informed, and did not at that time know, of any other alleged reason or cause for such rejection. That your petitioner has now in his possession official copies of the Admiralty Minutes and the Reports of the then professional officers of the Admiralty, made concerning your petitioner's plans furnished to him by the Solicitor of the Admiralty. He (Colonel Beresford) was prepared to show that the designs of the petitioner were rejected because the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) then Chief Constructor of the Navy, together with Mr. Barnaby, the present Chief Constructor, had evidently determined that no designs except their own should be acted upon, and there was no doubt Mr. Henwood's professional prospects had seriously suffered in consequence.

MR. E. J. REED

rose to Order. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would speak up, as he could not be heard on that (the Opposition) side of the House. As far as he could understand, the hon. and gallant Member was making serious aspersions on his (Mr. Reed's) character.

COLONEL BERESFORD

said, he was speaking as loud as he could. Had his views been honestly carried out, Mr. Henwood believed the necessary improvement in the state of things would have been effected at an expenditure of one-third less than was actually incurred. The petitioner went on to say that— From such Reports and other official documents your petitioner finds that the designs for ships represented to the Board of Admiralty as those of your petitioner were not the designs or plans proposed by your petitioner, but were in fact altered and thereby made absurd and ridiculous, and such as no experienced constructor (in his senses) would have put forward. And your petitioner agrees with the officially expressed opinion given in these Reports that such ships erroneously alleged to be those prepared by your petitioner, would, if adopted, 'have led to wholesale loss and disaster' in Her Majesty's Navy, as subsequently happened by the capsizing of the ill-fated Captain. That your petitioner finds that greater quantities and heavier weights were wrongly substituted for his own; in fact, greater quantities and heavier weights than were adopted in and for similar sized ships for Her Majesty's Service, in consequence of which overloading by increased and unnecessary weights the freeboard of the ships, as proposed by your petitioner, was greatly reduced, and the stability dangerously diminished, as similarly took place in the construction of the Captain. That the freeboard of the design submitted by your petitioner in 1866, embodying a patent invention, No. 472, 1866, of the well-known eminent engineer, Mr. Robert Napier, of Glasgow, was 11 feet in height above the water, which design was for one of the medium-sized line-of-battle ships, but in the following year (1867) your petitioner sent in a design for one of the larger ships, the Duncan, and in this design, finding that the necessary stability could be obtained with a freeboard of 4ft. 5½in., he dispensed with the patent plan of Mr. Napier. That the stability of the Duncan, as designed and proposed by your petitioner was at the least 11,232 'foot tons'(meaning moment of stability), with a freeboard of 4ft. 5½in. That the design represented to the Admiralty as that proposed by your petitioner for the Duncan had a freeboard of 3ft. 6in., with a stability of only 7,222 'foot tons,' such being practically as dangerous a ship as the Captain. That the stability of the Captain, as completed and sent to sea with a freeboard of 6ft. 4½in., was not more than 7,100 'foot tons,' although had that ship been built as designed she would not have capsized, inasmuch as she would have been possessed of 60 per cent greater stability than as actually constructed. That it has been publicly urged as against your petitioner's plans that if the Captain, with 6ft. 4½in. of freeboard, was a dangerous ship, the Duncan, with only 4ft. 5½in. of freeboard, was a much more dangerous ship, the other facts being suppressed—viz., that the Duncan had 9ft. greater breadth of beam than the Captain, and that the stability of the Duncan, as designed and proposed by your petitioner, was just 60 per cent greater than that of the Captain as constructed and sent to sea. That your petitioner further finds in these Reports groundless allegations, from what cause he knows not, against his professional ability and character—viz., 'that it was impossible to attach any confidence to the judgments or calculations of your petitioner,' and further, 'that it would be madness to undertake the conversion in accordance with Henwood's plans,' meaning the plans with 3ft. 6in. of freeboard, and 7,222 'foot tons' stability; and that 'these plans' 'had no weight whatever from the known antecedents of their author,' thus insinuating that your petitioner's antecedents were so bad as to render any plans of his worthless. [The hon. and gallant Member here read the opinion of Mr. Isaac Watts, formerly Chief Constructor of the Navy, as to the competency of the petitioner as a naval architect. Mr. Isaac Watts' testimony was of a most complimentary character. He also read a number of documents, including certain recommendations sent to the Institute of Naval Architects, of which the hon. Member for Pembroke was the then Secretary, to prove that Mr. Henwood was a gentleman of high reputation and eminence as a shipbuilder.] The hon. and gallant Member then continued:—Since he (Colonel Beresford) had taken up the case, all persons connected with the shipping interest with whom he had conversed said with one voice that Mr. Henwood was a man of integrity and honour; but the result of this misrepresentation was that the Board of Admiralty, to whom Mr. Henwood was favourably known, was misled, and induced to believe that his plans were "so faulty and ill-considered" that no satisfactory conversion of ships could be made on the plans he had suggested. The petitioner then stated— That in consequence of the adoption of figures and calculations alleged to have been submitted by your petitioner, but which were never submitted by your petitioner, which he is in a position to prove by official documents, the reputation of your petitioner as a naval architect was, and still is, seriously injured in the eyes of foreign Governments, shipowners, and others, who previously to the Reports upon your petitioner's plans had the greatest confidence in his ability, whereby your petitioner has suffered most seriously; and further, that in consequence of the said Reports comparisons have been made officially and otherwise with your petitioner's designs and that of the Captain, with which your petitioner had had nothing whatever to do; and, finally, that your petitioner still continues in the belief, confirmed by the disaster which happened to the Captain, that your petitioner's designs were sound, and that had his figures been used conclusions so ridiculous and unfeasible could not have been arrived at. The petitioner then asked the Admiralty for an inquiry, and quoted the case of Mr. G. H. Bovill, in 1853. That case was, briefly, that Mr. Bovill, having constructed some improved machinery, the officials connected with the Department for which it was intended, so damaged that machinery by putting stones and rubbish into it, that it was rejected. Mr. Bovill was fortunate in having in the House a brother who was a lawyer of great eminence, and who afterwards became a Judge, and, on his Motion, a Committee was granted, and the result was that the master miller was discharged, and two subordinates were reprimanded. The reference to that case was, perhaps, fortunate; at any rate, in this one all inquiry was refused. He would impress upon the House that in the Petition, and in discussing the case, it was necessary to remember that the indictment was not so much against Sir Spencer Robinson, as he was a non-professional man, and obliged to accept the Reports made to him. The petitioner wound up by stating— That your Petitioner, by reason of the matters herein alleged, all of which he is prepared to prove by official documentary evidence, has suffered, and still suffers, great prejudice and injury in his reputation and profession, and consequent loss of practice. That your Petitioner's sole means of livelihood is his professional character and reputation, which in the manner aforesaid have been wrongfully assailed, prejudiced and injured. And your Petitioner prays that your honourable House will be graciously pleased to cause a full and impartial investigation to be made into the matters hereinbefore alleged, in order that your Petitioner may have an opportunity of establishing the truth of the same, and that justice may be done, and your Petitioner relieved from the prejudice which has been created against him by the reason of the aforesaid circumstances. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving for a Select Committee.

SIR EDWARD WATKIN

, in seconding the Motion, confessed he knew nothing of Mr. Henwood or of his case. He felt, however, that the right of Petition to that House was one which ought not to be tampered with, and that when a question arose between a powerless individual and a powerful Government or Party, it was the duty of independent Members, however unpopular the course might be, to vindicate that right. In this case, here was a Petition presented in the exercise of that right, making a distinct charge of wrong against certain officials connected with the Admiralty, and claiming a distinct inquiry. The House, he might add, had received the Petition and ordered it to be printed. The charge was, that those officials had purposely misrepresented certain calculations and plans at a critical period of our naval history. If true, it was a grave charge indeed; if untrue, in his opinion, Mr. Henwood not only deserved severe censure, but ought to be punished for making accusations of so false and scandalous a nature. The House itself had a right to demand that the First Lord of the Admiralty should vindicate his Department by a full inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be sans peur, sans reproche, and on this occasion show that he was sans peur by consenting to this inquiry, and he would then also be sans reproche.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the case of Mr. Charles Henwood,"—(Colonel Beresford,) —instead thereof.

After a pause—

MR. HUNT

said, he had not risen at the moment because he thought the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed), who had been personally alluded to, might have deemed it right to address some observations to the House in reply to the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend behind him. As, however, the hon. Gentleman had not done so, he (Mr. Hunt) wished to state himself his views on the subject. The circumstances to which the attention of the House had been called were briefly these—In 1866, it being the desire of the Admiralty to convert some of our old men-of-war into more modern instruments of war as ironclads, Mr. Henwood sent in proposals and plans for that purpose. Those proposals were seriously entertained, and had considerable attention given to them. It was the duty of the then Controllers of the Navy, Messrs. Reed, Barnaby, and Sir Spencer Robinson, to consider those plans and to make Reports upon them, and they reported upon them accordingly to the Department. Now, those Reports were always confidential Reports, and it was desirable that they should always remain so, for proposals submitted to the Board were frequently very numerous, and it was important that they should be investigated and reported upon freely without fear of consequences. The petitioner stated in his Petition that copies of the Reports in question were furnished to him by the Solicitor to the Admiralty, and he (Mr. Hunt) had no means of contradicting the statement, as that Gentleman (Mr. Bristow) was now dead. He, however, thought it to be a very strong statement, and had therefore directed search to be made in that department, and it was only right to say that no trace could be found of any such document having been furnished. It was impossible for him to say the statement was not true, but it certainly was an extraordinary one. He was of opinion that it must have got out through the inquiry made into the loss of the Captain; but whether so or not, it would be very unfortunate if these Reports were ever allowed to be made public. His hon. and gallant Friend, in dealing with the case, had entered into a great deal of technical matter, of which he (Mr. Hunt) made no complaint; but the main charge was, that Mr. Henwood had submitted certain designs to the officers of the Admiralty, and that they had reported on plans which were not his, and had thus deceived the Board. But what was the nature of the passage from the Blue Book which he had quoted in support of the charge? It was to the effect that the quantities and weights rested upon by Mr. Henwood were not those which their experience told them ought to be estimated, for they supplied those weights and quantities which alone would give the plans any value. That was the answer to the charge. Mr. Henwood said that certain quantities and weights should form the basis of the calculation, and the Controllers said that, according to Mr. Henwood's own plans, those quantities and weights would not suffice. They therefore put before the Admiralty the quantities and weights which would be necessary if his plans were adopted. It had been alleged that these weights and quantities had been put forward by Mr. Henwood. But that was a mistake, as was clearly shown by a printed Minute on the subject issued by the Admiralty, and which he (Mr. Hunt) held in his hand. To it was appended a note by the gentleman who made the calculations, explaining that the investigation had been made independently of the weights and quantities given by Mr. Henwood, his plans only being followed. Thus, in point of fact, the officials in the Constructor's Department adopted the weights and quantities which they thought ought to be taken instead of those proposed by Mr. Henwood. They represented that, with those weights, the immersion of the ship would be greater than Mr. Henwood thought it would be, and they advised the Admiralty not to adopt his plan. This was the main matter complained of by Mr. Henwood. With respect to the question of freeboard, Mr. Henwood had himself altered his proposals. First, he proposed a freeboard of 3ft. 6in., and subsequently freeboards of 4ft. 4in., 4ft. 5in., 4ft. 3½in., and 4ft. 6in. The last freeboard proposed by Mr. Henwood was, he thought, one of 4ft. At different times he had also proposed different weights. He (Mr. Hunt) confessed that he was perfectly satisfied with the explanations furnished to him by the heads of departments in the Admiralty, and for that reason he saw no public grounds for the appointment of a Select Committee. He had great faith in the present head of the department, who had joined in the representations made to the Admiralty, as well as in those with whom he was associated. He therefore saw no reason whatever, on public grounds, for inquiry into a matter which had been conclusively settled, but if the hon. Member for Pembroke thought that such an inquiry was necessary to vindicate his character he would not oppose it, though he must add that it was not at all required, and he trusted that if the hon. Member took the same view his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw his Motion.

MR. BAXTER

thought the First Lord had exercised a wise discretion in opposing the Motion. He had listened with great attention to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford), and he submitted to the House that no case whatever had been made out to justify their interference. Nay, he would even go further, and say that in his opinion Mr. Henwood had no substantial grievance of which any Court or public Assembly could take cognizance. It was perfectly true that these designs, which on the face of them did not appear very likely, were disapproved and condemned unanimously by the officers of the Admiralty, but successive Governments had upheld the action of those officers; and the question which the House had to consider was not whether the officers acted wisely, but whether the House itself was prepared to act as a sort of Court of Review in a matter of this character. The House was not an Assembly of naval architects, and was not in a position to investigate a question of the kind. Inventors must expect their designs to be criticized, and if every critic was to be brought before the House of Commons, or before a Court of Law, the House and the Courts of Law in this country would have very little time to attend to anything else. The hon. and gallant Member for Southwark kept out of view altogether the fact that Mr. Henwood had endeavoured to vindicate his reputation elsewhere, he having first taken legal proceedings against the Admiralty printer and against the hon. Member for Pembroke. The Courts of Law, however, would not entertain the matter, and now Mr. Henwood asked the House of Commons to waste its time in making an inquiry. Mr. Henwood in the first page of his pamphlet accused his (Mr. Baxter's) gallant friend Sir Spencer Robinson and his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) not merely of making mistakes, but of dishonesty and corruption. What the Motion really demanded was, that that House should declare its conviction that it was true; but did any hon. Member of that House for a moment believe charges of that sort? He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke would not think it worth his while to take any further notice of a pamphlet which was one of the most bombastic, foolish, and offensive documents he ever read.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he rose for the purpose of confirming the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baxter), and to express his regret that the subject had been brought before the House. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark would withdraw the Motion, for in his opinion, the character of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke did not require vindication.

MR. E. J. REED

said, the pamphlet which had been referred to was undoubt- edly one of the most offensive and scurrilous documents ever published about public men. For that reason he had never taken any notice of it. The officials at the Admiralty, as guardians of the public interests, altered Mr. Henwood's weights, not improperly, but properly. They did their duty in accordance with their sense of responsibility, and he did not think a single Member of the House believed that the officers of the Admiralty improperly altered figures in documents. The case, in short, was entirely unworthy of that Assembly, and for that reason he would not take up their time. It was stated in the Petition that Mr. Watts, the former Chief Constructor of the Navy, spoke strongly in favour of Mr. Henwood's plan. It appeared, however, on inquiry, that Mr. Watts had only expressed a general opinion and had made no calculations. Consequently, that gentleman's opinion was as unsubstantial as that of any other person. His own reputation he felt, did not need the vindication of a Select Committee, and the reputation of the officers at the Admiralty stood quite as little in need of such investigation to prove that they had acted correctly.

MR. SAMUDA

only wished to add that he recollected being present at a former discussion upon the question, when the same allegations were made, and when the noble Lord the present First Commissioner of Works, then the Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Henry Lennox) gave precisely the same satisfactory statement and reply as that which had now been put before him by the First Lord of the Admiralty. The calculations as to weight and quantities sent in by Mr. Henwood had, of course, to be submitted to proof by professional officers, and in their judgment they were found deficient in strength. When the defects were remedied the ship was found to be too much immersed, and hence the conclusions they arrived at that the proposal was bad; but that was a very different thing from altering and falsifying Henwood's figures, but of submitting them with what they thought indispensable corrections, and he did not think that the House was called upon to judge whether the professional advisers of the Department were right or wrong in the advice they gave to the Admiralty on this head. To do so would be to take away the responsibilities of public officers and public Departments, and lead to great mischief. He could not help thinking that if the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark had been better advised he never would have been induced to bring forward a motion which he (Mr. Samuda) hoped, after the explanation made, would be withdrawn.

COLONEL BERESFORD

said, he would, by leave, withdraw the Motion. ["No, no!"]

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.