DR. CAMERON,in rising to call attention to the history of the Admiralty Negotiations for the raising of H.M.S. "Vanguard," said: The loss of the Vanguard occurred on the 1st of September, 1875. She had sunk on the Kish Bank in such a depth of water that it would evidently be a matter of the greatest difficulty to raise her. The tide swept over her at four miles an hour, carrying in its stream the sails and cordage in such a manner as sometimes to endanger the lives of the divers who went down to the wreck. On two separate 1770 occasions were divers hauled up apparently lifeless; and on one of these it required the united strength of seven or eight men to pull the diver clear from the wreck in which he had got entangled. And these risks had to be encountered, not in connection with the most difficult, but most important operation of surveying the hull of the vessel and the bed on which she lay, but in connection with the comparatively easy work which lay above her deck. A survey of the vessel was of course attempted, and on one occasion, according to the Annual Register, two divers
successfully reached the hull, which lies in deep darkness, and measured the hole in the side by means of notching a wooden lath carried down for the purpose and placed against the aperture. The Denayrouze lamp," the account goes on to say, "which had been materially useful in removing the rigging of the ship, was not taken down on this occasion, inasmuch as the divers required to use both hands in endeavouring to escape entanglement by some stray rope.Well, Sir, it is evident that the survey thus described could hardly be regarded as a very satisfactory one. Now, my enumeration of blunders in the conduct of this business commences at this point, and I have here to point out that, notwithstanding the all-importance of obtaining an accurate survey of the vessel, the authorities neglected what was probably the most obvious means of securing information. The depth of water in which the vessel lay was 120 feet—a depth at which it could hardly be expected that the Dockyard divers, who are not accustomed to deep-sea work would find themselves at home, and at which only divers of exceptional experience, expertness, and daring could hope to exceed. Gentlemen conversant with salvage operations tell me that under such circumstances the choice of men is very restricted, and that they would have to pay the proper men as high as £5 per dive to induce them to undertake such a task. The Admiralty, however—if I am rightly informed—never attempted to avail themselves of the assistance of these experts, and contented themselves with the services of Dockyard men utterly unaccustomed to deep-water work, and paid only a few shillings per hour. The result was that I am assured by practical men that they regard the Report as to the vessel being sunk into the sand, which was put forth as the reason for the Admiralty abandon- 1771 ing the attempt to raise her, as unreliable, and probably founded in error. On the 6th of December, the Admiralty advertized for tenders for raising the Vanguard and delivering her in dock, on certain conditions. Among these were—1st, the very necessary one that all parties tendering should furnish satisfactory evidence of their financial ability to undertake the work; 2nd, That no payment was to be made to the contractor, nor any claim to payment arise, until the delivery was complete; and 3rd, That in the event of the rate of progress not being satisfactory to their Lordships, their Lordships should be at liberty to cancel the contract, and that the parties whose tender should be accepted should sign a contract to be prepared at the Admiralty, binding them to give effect to their tender on the conditions advertized, and such further or other conditions as might be agreed on. All tenders were to be for a lump sum, and they were to be sent in not later than February 1st of last year. My information as to the result of this competition is devived from an article in The Standard newspaper of April 10th, 1876. According to that article, the advertizement for tenders had elicited 450 replies, and a contract for raising the vessel had been entered into with a French engineer who had for a considerable time been resident in England. The plan on which the vessel was to be raised was described as being a combination of air balloons, inflated in the interior of the vessel, and caissons attached to her externally; but the writer added that the plan proposed had never been tried in practice. The article then proceeded to give quotations from the agreement entered into between the French engineer and the Admiralty, of which Articles 10 and 11 were as follows:—The [Admiralty] Inspector appointed to watch the operations, should he disapprove of any procedure on the part of the contractor, may give him notice to discontinue the work; and, if the Admiralty wish, all operations are to cease and. the plant to be removed; and should the Admiralty find the modus operandi inapplicable, they are at liberty to cancel the agreement.The article concluded that the contractor was to commence operations in earnest in May. Who, then, was this French engineer who had been successful among 450 competitors, who had such confidence 1772 in his scheme that he was prepared to set to work without any advance, and venture the success of his project at any moment up to its full completion on the irresponsible caprice of an unknown Inspector to be appointed by the Admiralty? The engineer in question was a M. Louis Othon, of 8, Victoria Chambers, Westminster, formerly acting partner of Messrs. de Valbams & Company, a concern carrying on business as a long firm —or something very like it—in the City, and at that moment hopelessly insolvent. He knew nothing whatever about salvage operations, and, if I am rightly informed, had adopted the plan which commended itself to the Admiralty from one of the numberless specifications of inventions connected with the raising of ships, procurable from the Patent Office. What conceivable motive—hon. Members will ask—could such a man have in putting in such a tender? Sir, M. Othon was too experienced a financier not fully to appreciate the importance of credit. His credit had of late been very much out at the elbows, and he believed that the confidence reposed in him by the Admiralty would result, if not in the raising of the Vanguard, at least in the restoration of a marketable value to his note of hand. I think, Sir, it was an unfortunate nobleman, not unknown to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley), and at present languishing in Dartmoor Prison, who remarked that Providence having endowed some men with money and no brains, and other men with brains and no money, surely the men with money and no brains must be intended for the benefit of those with brains and no money. It was this great principle which M. Louis Othon, the unknown French engineer, proceeded to carry into practice, at the expense of the august and redoubtable Lords Commissioners of the British Admiralty.
§ MR. WHALLEYrose to say that as the hon. Member had referred to a sentiment said to have been expressed by the unfortunate Tichborne Claimant, he begged emphatically to deny that the Claimant had ever in speech or writing given expression to such a sentiment.
DR. CAMERONI am sorry that the hon. Member has dispelled my illusion as to the authorship of the maxim I quoted, for I have always considered the sentiment so tersely expressed as one of the most remarkable sayings of a very remarkable man. However, the manner in which 1773 M. Othon proceeded to turn his negotiations with the Admiralty to account was so ludicrous, that I trust the House will pardon me if I describe it at some little length. At the very time when the Admiralty were advertising for tenders—in December, 1875, before M. Othon became a civil engineer, when he was still a member of the long firm, ordering everything that was offered to him, and paying in acceptances—he had obtained, under the name of H. de Valbams & Co., a consignment of corks from a Bordeaux cork merchant, and paid for them in the usual manner, the acceptances being—as usual —dishonoured. As de Valbams & Co., M. Othon had apparently found corks a commodity easy to float in all states of the market, and possibly he thought they might assist him in floating the Vanguard. At all events, no sooner had he acquired a reflected credit from his dealings with the Admiralty, than he cast his eyes once more to Bordeaux, and made a bid for another consignment of corks. Accordingly, he wrote the Bordeaux merchant a letter dated May 6, 1876, of which I hold a copy. In this letter, after informing the cork merchant that he had formerly been a partner in De Valbams & Co., and reminding him that he (the cork merchant) held the acceptances of that firm for about £300, M. Othon goes on to say—
Seeing that these all bear the signature of H. de Valbams & Co., adhibited by me, and that said house is insolvent, owing to my having retired, and seeing that I have accepted the responsibility of this affair, I wish to fulfil the engagements towards you into which that house has entered. You cannot be ignorant that I hold a contract from the English Government for the raising of the Vanguard, for which I receive £50,000 for the ship alone, beside 50 per cent on all that is found in her, such as guns, boats, provisions, cables, munitions, arms, effects, plate, money, &c., everything, in fact, which is not the carcase of the ship, and as the value of these is estimated at £200,000, there is £100,000 to add to the £50,000, or in all £150,000. The salvage operations will not cost more than £15,000, and as I divide my profits with the capitalists who assist me, in this affair, there is still a sum of £60,000 at least which remains for my share.… Here, then, is what I propose. One may find people who will give one £20,000 to raise the Vanguard, but one can find few people to lend one £300 to pay one's debts, and, moreover, you can hardly ask for £300 to pay private debts from gentlemen who guarantee £20,000 for a great affair like this. In short, you have notes of the house of H. de Valbams & Co. for about £300. I do not expect to be able to meet these notes at their maturity, because my work will not be sufficiently advanced; and what I propose is 1774 that you should send me £300 worth of corks, to cover which I shall give you my acceptance at 3 months, and for the notes in circulation I will pay £150 when they fall due, and will renew for the other £150. It is understood that the bills shall bear my signature, L. Othon, civil engineer, 8, Victoria Chambers, Westminster, a circumstance which will assist their negotiation, for now people in France as well as in England know the Laureate of the Admiralty, and my reputation has a value of its own. It is of course a speculation, but at the price which you charge for your corks you can afford to risk something.(Signed) "L. OTHON.8 Victoria Chambers, Westminster.The cork merchant, however, had had enough of business with Messrs. do Valbams & Co., and instead of forwarding to him more corks, took steps for the capture of M. Othon, sending over among other documents the letter I have read, and an affidavit in which he plainly states "that the manner in which his goods had been obtained was simply a fraud." Now, Sir, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman how it came that the Admiralty—the first condition in whose advertisement for tenders was that the tenderer should satisfy them of his financial ability to carry out his proposal—might I ask how it came that the Admiralty allowed from February to May to elapse without satisfying themselves as to the financial inability of M. Othon to perform what he was so ready to undertake? Can it possibly be true, as stated in The Broad Arrow, that he referred their Lordships to a bank in his native town, but that they never took the trouble to inquire whether that bank had any existence? Well, towards the end of June last, I observed in the papers a statement to the effect that the Admiralty had definitely adopted Dr. Rutherford's plan for raising the Vanguard, and had advertised for tenders, and, in consequence, I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement was true, and, if so, whether the contract alleged to have been entered into with M. Othon had been rescinded. In reply the right hon. Gentleman informed me that no definite contract had been concluded with M. Othon, although there had been negotiations with him. These negotiations had, however, been broken off, and the Admiralty were at that moment negotiating with two other parties. One of the parties was Dr. Rutherford, of Newcastle, with whom, I understand, the Admiralty kept up 1775 communications for several months, at one time objecting to the sum he named, then when he had consented to modify his demand, laying down an entirely new basis for negotiations, and finally breaking off with him altogether. The other day I wrote to ask Dr. Rutherford some particulars of the negotiations with the Admiralty, and this is his reply—Most of the Admiralty letters to me are in London, otherwise I should send you a copy of the whole correspondence, which extended over three months or more. I got out working drawings and specifications, which were furnished to the Admiralty. Gentlemen of financial experience and standing undertook the establishment of a company to carry out the contract if I got it. And to this hour I do not know why the negotiations fell through. No reason whatever was assigned. I cannot conceive anything more unbusinesslike, or anything more fitted to drive away men of ability and integrity from Admiralty contracts. The entire history reveals the utmost infirmity of purpose.At length, on August 11th, their Lordships once more advertized for tenders, this time for the purchase of the vessel as she lay. This time the conditions of the purchase were two-fold; first, that two-thirds of the purchase money should be paid within 14 days of acceptance of offer, and the remaining third within six months afterwards; and secondly, that the buyer was to hand over to the Government all guns, projectiles, anchors, and chain cables brought from the wreck at certain fixed prices. Now the prices offered were very far below the market value. For ten nine-inch 12½-ton guns, the value of which would not be far short of £10,000, it was proposed to pay only £2,500; and for the four 64-pounders, four 12-pounders, and one 9-pounder, which constituted the rest of her armament, only £384 for the lot. Nine-inch projectiles were to be taken over at £5 per ton, and chain cable at £1 1s. 6d. per ton. Tenders for the purchase of the vessel under these conditions were to belodged not later than November 1st. I need hardly say how important it was that a definite arrangement as to the tenders in terms of this advertisement should be come to without delay, so as to admit of preparations being made for the salvage operations during the approaching summer. In so simple a transaction as the sale of a vessel as she lay, it should have been an easy matter to select the highest bidder, and the fact 1776 of two-thirds of the purchase-money requiring to be deposited within 14 days should, one would think, have limited the amount of delay possible. And yet one tender having been accepted—again, I understand, from a gentleman financially unable to carry out his undertaking—instead of insisting on the deposit of two-thirds of the purchase-money within 14 days according to the terms of the advertisement, their Lordships prolonged this term again and again, and apparently only broke off the negotiations finally in the middle of January, after another two months of invaluable time had been wasted. In January they opened up negotiations with Captain Coppin, a gentleman of very large experience in raising sunken ships, and an understanding so definite was arrived at that I believe the necessary capital was in large part raised, and Captain Coppin and his friends believed that nothing remained to do but to sign the contract. The terms of this proposal were, that the contractors should pay for salvage the sum of £20,000 for a complete transfer of the vessel with everything on beard; that if the vessel was raised and placed in dry dock the Government was to have the option of purchasing her for £175,000, and that if she was not raised Government would allow the contractors two-thirds of the value of the guns and such other stores as might be recovered. Well, here again precious time was wasted in the most wanton manner, and when the contract came to be drawn up, it was found to contain conditions exposing the contractors to constant Admiralty interference, and providing that valuations, by whatever official they might appoint, should be taken as final — conditions which were never contemplated by the contractors, and to which no prudent man would submit. The result is, that we are now near the middle of March, another couple of months have been wasted in these negotiations, which, so far as I know, have as yet resulted in nothing, and practically, I fear, another summer has been lost. The Vanguard will certainly not improve by her long sojourn at the bottom. A lightship has to be stationed over her to warn passing vessels off the wreck, and only the other day an hon. Member asked the right hon. Gentleman a Question relative to the wreck of a vessel and the loss of 1777 several lives through her having mistaken the light placed over the Vanguard for the Kish light. What I protest against is the utter business incapacity which has been manifested throughout these negotiations, the result of which is that, after 18 months' delay, no single step has been taken to recover any of the £500,000 worth of national property which lies on the Kish Bank. The Admiralty have naturally no experience in such salvage operations. Why did they not go to the underwriters and find out some man who had? If they had got such a man—and from everything I hear they could not have got a better man than the very Captain Coppin with whom they are now negotiating—if they had followed the practice of underwriters, defraying his outlay and paying him either a percentage on salvage or a certain sum on the successful docking of the vessel, I venture to say that the chances are the Vanguard would have been got up last summer. But after a brief and feeble effort the Admiralty chose to abandon the attempt themselves, and advertised the vessel for sale. I confess I cannot see the smallest difficulty in the conduct of such a negotiation as the sale of the vessel as she lay. The Admiralty need care nothing about the plan of the contractor, nor the probability of success. All they had to do was to select the highest solvent bidder. But they must needs encumber the contract with all sorts of conditions which no rational man would undertake. In the worst case, I am assured there is little doubt about the possibility of getting up the guns and stores. Well, if the contractor was allowed to deal with them as he liked, he could afford to pay a price for the wreck on the chance of recovering her altogether, and the all but certainty of recovering so much stores as would repay a great part of his outlay. But no, the Admiralty must stipulate at one time that the guns, shot, cables, and so forth, must be handed over to them at a mere fraction of their value; at another, that the hull must on no account be broken up. Now, Sir, I do not attribute the bungling which has taken place in this affair to anything worse than carelessness and want of business aptitude among the officials entrusted with the negotiations, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that a much less charitable view of the matter is taken by dis- 1778 appointed contractors outside, and that they openly declare that the explanation of the whole thing is that the Admiralty, having failed to raise the vessels themselves, do not wish any one else to succeed, and that what would please the Department best is that the Vanguard should lie where she is till the day of doom. I have called attention to these negotiations, not in any spirit of hostility to the Government, or to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, but in the hope that he himself will look into the matter, and that if unfortunately we should have occasion to raise some other vessel, or if perchance a hope still survives of raising the Vanguard, negotiations will in future be so conducted as to give the enterprize and inventive talent of the country something like fair play.
§ MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, that as the negotiations for raising the Vanguard had been conducted through his department of the Admiralty, any blame for that which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Dr. Cameron) had called "business inaptitude" must be laid to him. He would briefly state the history of the matter, and he would endeavour to show that the Admiralty had done the best in its power throughout the whole of these negotiations. The Vanguard was sunk on the 1st of September, 1875, and steps were immediately taken by means of a force of divers under one of our best officers to ascertain what was the state of the ship and what was to be done. The hon. Gentleman had found great fault with the Government divers, and he said there were other divers to be found who could have done, in all probability, a great deal more than the Government divers. He (Mr. Egerton) ventured altogether to traverse the statement. The French divers under M. Denayrouze who were consulted would not have anything to do with the ship, as they said she was so deep in the water, and the pressure was so great as to render it all but impossible for divers to work. As to the Admiralty divers, only two could be found to work, as there was great difficulty in working at the depth at which the ship was sunk. The pressure of air was so great that a man could remain below no longer than a quarter of an hour at a time. Only once had a man been on the deck of the ship since she was sunk, and that 1779 was by accident; he slipped from the bridge and was got up with difficulty, being nearly suffocated by the coiling of a rope round his neck. The Admiralty continued operations to see what they could do with the ship till early in December, when, in consequence of the necessity there would have been for building pontoons and withdrawing men from the dockyards for the works, it was thought wiser to give up all idea on the part of the Government of working on their own account, and to endeavour to induce parties outside to offer for raising the ship. On the 6th of December they invited offers, and in answer several hundred offers were made, some of them being of the wildest and most insane description. Three only were deemed worthy of consideration, and they were those of M. Othon, Mr. Sowerbutts, and Dr. Rutherford. M. Othon offered to raise the ship for £50,000, but the Admiralty were not satisfied as to his ability to obtain the money required, and the negotiation with him was closed on the 5th of June. The hon. Gentleman had given the House an amusing account of the financial operations of this gentleman; but with that the Admiralty had nothing to do. In the other two cases, Mr. Sowerbutts named £140,000, and Dr. Rutherford £150,000. Mr. Sowerbutts was asked to reduce the amount he had named, as was also Dr. Rutherford, who, in reply, asked the Admiralty to advance £5,000 and find the ships that would be required in connection with the work. That was a totally distinct offer, introducing conditions which the Admiralty could not entertain, as they had resolved not to advance a single halfpenny until the ship was delivered over to them, and, therefore, they declined the last offer on the 30th June, 1876. On the 1st of July Dr. Rutherford offered to raise the ship for £130,000, but that was thought too much, and with the decline of that offer, the negotiation was considered closed. It was then determined to advertise the ship for sale as she lay for a lump sum, and 11 tenders were received. While the advertisement was being drawn up, Dr. Rutherford reduced his offer to £100,000, but that was considered too much; he was informed the vessel would be offered for sale, and nothing further had been heard from him. He therefore failed to see what that gentleman had 1780 to complain of. Ultimately, negotiations were opened up with Captain Coppin, who thought he had discovered a plan by which men could continue to work at the depth at which the Vanguard was lying, and if a satisfactory arrangement were not entered in a short time, he should feel disappointed. He had given to the House as full an account as he could of the whole course of the negotiations, and considering all the difficulties and the length of time that had been required to examine the various plans sent in and the nearly absolute necessity there was of being very careful of any contracts they entered into, he really did not think that any opportunity had been lost, and he hoped the explanation he had given would be considered satisfactory.