HC Deb 17 May 1877 vol 234 cc1094-8
MR. MITCHELL HENRY

had the following Notice upon the Paper:— To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Why the Report of the Committee on the existence of scurvy in the recent Arctic Expedition has been so long delayed; whether the Report published in the "Times" of the 16th instant is the original Report, or whether it has been in any respect modified or mitigated in consequence of pressure from the Admiralty, or from any other official quarter; and, whether it is a fact that a large part of the supply of lime juice sent down to be put on board the "Albert" and the "Discovery," before they left England, was rejected by the Commanders of those ships on the ground that it had arrived too late and that there was not room for it on board. The hon. Member; on rising to put the Question, said, that since he gave Notice of the first part of the Question the Report had been published, and therefore he withdrew that interrogatory. He would, however, put the second and third parts of the Question.

MR. HUNT

The hon. Member has withdrawn the first Question of which he gave Notice, as to why the Report was delayed. I must withdraw the second, because to my mind the second Question is of an insulting character. It is insulting to the Admiralty, and it is insulting to the Committee; and I must decline to submit to an insult, though put in the form of an interrogation. As to the last Question, I would say that there is no foundation in fact for the allegation contained in it.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

I rise to a point of Order. I submit that there is nothing whatever in the Question of an insulting character. I had certainly no intention of asking anything insulting to anybody. It is a well-known fact that Reports are frequently referred back again for modification. I will put the question in any form in which the right hon. Gentleman may desire to have it modified. But I wish to have the information before the public; and, as the House will observe, the right hon. Gentleman has not answered either of these two most important Questions.

MR. HUNT

Mr. Speaker, the Admiralty appointed a Committee. That Committee was of a judicial character, and the hon. Member asks whether the Admiralty have applied pressure to that Committee in order to induce them to modify their Report. I consider that an insulting question, and I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the Member on the subject. I have answered the third Question—namely, there is no foundation in fact in the allegation implied in that Question.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether the Report has, in any respect, been modified? That is the Question I desire to have answered—whether this is the original Report of the Committee, or whether the Report which is now published, which I may say is a very meagre one, is a modification of the original Report? ["Order!"]

MR. BUTT

I beg leave to inquire—["Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. and learned Member must give Notice of his Question.

MR. BUTT

I beg leave to move that this House do now adjourn. I must say that the manner in which the First Lord of the Admiralty seems to regard the Question, which refers to a matter of great interest, is not the manner in which a Question ought to be received by one of Her Majesty's Ministers. The Question which the hon. Member for Galway has put is, whether the Report published in The Times of the 16th instant is the original Report, or whether it has been in any respect modified or mitigated in consequence of pressure from the Admiralty, or from any other official quarter? Now, that is a very plain Question, and admits of a very plain answer, and that answer has not been given. It is a matter on which the House has a right to be informed, and on which any Member of the House has a right to put a Question. I really do not understand that this Question does reflect in the manner the First Lord assumes upon any official. I can easily conceive Reports being sent back to a Committee from an official quarter asking to have some error rectified; but, even suppose it does reflect upon anybody, that is the very reason why he should answer it, and why he should deny the allegation; and I say that we submit to a very great curtailment of the rights of Members if we are to be satisfied with a Minister getting up and saying—"I will not answer the Question, because I think there is an implied insult in it." That is a thing to which I think the House ought not to submit. I now move the Adjournment of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Butt.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I regret very much that this heat has suddenly grown up; but I must crave leave to say that I think the Question, as it stands on the Paper, does convey a very serious reflection upon the Admiralty, because it implies that the Admiralty have taken some steps to get a Report which, as my right hon. Friend says, was intended to be of a judicial character, modified or mitigated. Now, if that had been done by the Admiralty, it would have been undoubtedly a very serious offence, and one which would deserve serious notice. I do not think, therefore, the hon. Member for Galway has a right to put a Question of that sort, unless he has some ground to found such an assertion. If he has, I think it will be more convenient to the House and more fair to the Government that those grounds should be stated, and that some distinct Motion should be made; and in the absence of anything of that kind I think my right hon. Friend was justified in feeling hurt at a Question of this sort being put, and which by implication reflects very seriously upon the conduct of the Admiralty.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

I am entitled to say a word on the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend. The Question I have asked is a definite one, and can be easily and definitely answered. It is, whether the Report is the original Report, or whether it has been modified for any reason? If it has not been modified, then let the right hon. Gentleman say so, for he knows perfectly well that the proceedings of courts martial, which are judicial inquiries, are frequently referred back for alteration in the finding, and so are all these Reports. If this Report has been modified, we have a right to know further particulars; and I should then give a Notice of Motion upon the subject. But I protest against the language of the right hon. Gentleman. I protest against his applying to me—nor shall he do it in this House or elsewhere—language of the kind in which he was pleased to indulge. He spoke of my having put an insult upon him, to which he would not submit. I have done no such thing. These Questions are frequently answered, and I submit that the right hon. Gentleman is disorderly in the language he has used to me, and which will not at all intimidate me in the performance of my public duty.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

I think the hon. Member for Galway misapprehended altogether the judicial character of the tribunal to which this Question was referred, and the misunderstanding arises altogether from that fact. If my lion. Friend had known that the Admiralty had referred this inquiry to a judicial tribunal, I am sure he would be the last man in the House to reflect upon the Admiralty, or to assume for a moment that the Report had been modified. I am quite sure that the First Lord would not be guilty of putting pressure upon any Committee of a judicial character.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

believed that if the right hon. Gentleman knew the feeling which prevailed amongst medical men on the subject to which the Question of the hon. Member referred lie would be very desirous to give information upon it. There was, rightly or wrongly, a general impression that a Report was agreed upon by the Committee, and that, for some reason or other, it had been delayed, and finally altered by the Committee. He did not approve of the language in which the Question of the hon. Member was expressed. But, if the right hon. Gentleman had no objection, he would be prepared to ask him, after the other Questions had been disposed of, whether the Report published in the newspapers on the 16th instant was the original Report as it passed the Committee, or whether it had been in any respect modified?

MR. HUNT

I have not the slightest objection to answer the Question in that form. The Report laid upon the Table of the House is the only Report I have seen or heard of. It bears date the 3rd of March, and was presented to the Admiralty by the Chairman of the Committee, accompanied by a note stating that they had not yet obtained the Report or Memorandum of the Members of the Medical Committee. The Report was detained until that memorandum was received in a complete shape, and as soon as it was received—namely, on the 7th of March, the Report of the Committee was immediately laid upon the Table of the House. I do not know whether it has yet been circulated among hon. Members. There has been no delay whatever in producing it; and no intimation has been given to the Committee by the Admiralty, except to thank them for the pains they had taken in conducting the inquiry.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

I beg to give Notice that after Whitsuntide I shall ask whether the Report of the Committee, which has been printed as a Parliamentary Paper and issued to lion. Members, is that which was originally come to by the Committee, or whether it has been in any respect modified?