§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the manner in which Ireland was treated in respect to shipbuilding. Last year, while thousands upon thousands of pounds were spent in shipbuilding, there was only the miserable sum of £812 spent in connection with the matter in Ireland. It could not be said that there were no facilities for the building of ships in Ireland, inasmuch as there were great shipbuilders in Belfast. Ireland contributed largely towards the maintenance of the Navy; and they were entitled, therefore, to a fair share of the expenditure consequent upon it. Some years ago a few orders for gunboats were given, and the fact reflected most strongly on the Government, as during their time no work of the kind had been given. He also thought that they were entitled to have a Naval Dockyard in Cork.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, so far as private yards were concerned, he agreed, if there were any shipbuilders in Ireland who were accustomed to do the sort of work which the Admiralty required, that they should 1374 have a fair chance with others when a ship was put out to contract; and he rather thought that had been done so far as possible. There was a Dockyard at Haulbowline, in Ireland, and if they were to treat this matter according to national wants and aspirations, then, as a Scotchman, he was bound to say that his country was still worse off; because, of all the most admirable situations for Government Establishments and Dockyards, he could not conceive anything better than the upper part of the Firth of Forth, and yet they had nothing at all. He was unable to enter into figures on the subject, as this was not a matter connected with the Vote now under consideration.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought that the reply of the Secretary to the Admiralty was most unsatisfactory. He had no personal regard for the gentlemen in Belfast, and had no personal interest in anything concerning them. But there was a firm there—Messrs. Harland and Wolff—whose reputation as shipbuilders was exceedingly good,; and who would be able to produce any ships the Government might require. They were the firm that constructed the White Star American liners, and they were competent to do some of the Government shipbuilding if they got it to do.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Estimates under consideration had no bearing on the subject being discussed; and the discussion was, therefore, out of Order.
§ MR. O'KELLY, as a protest against the injustice of which he complained, challenged a Division upon the question of the reception of the Report.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 12: Majority 87.—(Div. List, No. 306.)
§ First Resolution agreed to.
§ Second Resolution (£27,555, Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments) read a second time.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he understood that this Vote included the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and, as that was the case, he wished to point out that the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as President of the Local Government 1375 Board in Ireland, had put a very extraordinary construction upon an Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament he referred to laid down that no paid officer of a Board of Guardians was entitled to take part in the administration of the funds of the Union; notwithstanding which, Dr. Naish was allowed to sit as a member of the Board of Guardians of the Manorhamilton Union, because he happened to be a Justice of the Peace and connected with the landlord party. How could it be expected that hon. Members would consent to appeals of the kind that had been made, when the Government allowed a medical officer, a pensioner of the Union, to sit upon the Board and vote away the rates out of which he was paid? The Chief Secretary boasted of his kindliness and courtesy to Irish Members; and, no doubt, he was everything that a Representative of an English Government ought to be. Fine phrases and smooth words were all very well; but, coming to facts, they found that the Chief Secretary was always ready to twist and distort circumstances to the disadvantage of the popular party, and to the interest of landlordism. In short, the time had come when war ought to be declared against the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had conducted the Irish administration; and he was sorry the Chief Secretary was not present to hear him say so. They had put up for two years with his conduct of Irish affairs in that House, and they had not attacked him in the way in which his Predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), had been attacked by the Irish Members. [Mr. CALLAN: Because he deserved it.] They entertained some hope of a new régime when the present Chief Secretary came into Office; but they found him eager and willing to tread in the stops of his Predecessor. Having watched him for two years in that House, so far as his (Mr. Healy's) estimate of him was concerned, he believed he was as utterly ingrained with the worst traditions of Dublin Castle as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. The right hon. Member for Bradford had a very strange state of things to deal with; he had. 1,000 men in prison on various charges; but the present Chief Secretary was in a very different position. The country was perfectly peaceful, except when an Orangeman occasionally shot a policeman at an 1376 eviction. They had the whole tone and temper of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford translated into a more courteous form of expression embodied in the conduct of the present Chief Secretary. There was no denying that the Chief Secretary possessed a good many arts which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had not. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford assumed an unnecessarily uncouth and rugged aspect in answering Questions; but the present Chief Secretary was much wiser in his generation, and, so far as words were concerned, he had not attempted needlessly to exasperate the feelings of the Irish Representatives. Yet, as far as he could be, he was as great an exponent of tyranny and of landlord principle as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. If the Chief Secretary had been in his place, he should have taken the liberty of extending his comments; but, in his absence, he would content himself by moving, as a protest, that the Vote be reduced by £4,000, the amount of the right hon. Gentleman's salary.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out "£27,555," and insert "£23,555,"—(Mr. Healy,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That '£27,555' stand part of the said Resolution."
§ MR. O'KELLYsupported the proposal of his hon. Friend, and said that the Chief Secretary and the Irish Executive conducted affairs in as offensive a manner to the Irish people as was possible. He did not think a gentleman like Dr. Naish would be allowed to hold in England the position he held in Ireland.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that the Government were not inclined to meet the allegations made. If Dr. Naish was able to sit on the Board of Guardians, although superannuated, he should be able to fulfil his previous duties. With reference to the comparison that had been drawn between the Chief Secretary and his Predecessor, it seemed to him that there was less excuse for the action of the present Chief Secretary, because, under the influence of the Land Act and better crops, the discontent of the people had in a great measure passed away. On Saturday the Chief Secretary was utterly unable to defend several of his actions in Ireland; and he really thought the time had come when 1377 he should be driven with ignominy from Office, as his Predecessor was, and ruined as a Government official.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that the absence of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) must be owing to some misconception on his own part, as he was in the House very recently. He was sure he might say this of his right hon. Friend—that the general feeling of Members, with few exceptions, was that there never had been an official more anxious to be courteous and polite under difficult circumstances, or who discharged his official duties with greater industry and ability. With regard to the case of Dr. Naish, although he would not absolutely commit himself in the matter, it appeared to him, after the best examination that he had been able to make, that the Guardians were perfectly right in their action, and the section which had been quoted did not apply to the case at all. He did not wish at present to give any strong expression of opinion upon the subject; but he would undertake to make further investigation into the matter. Under the circumstances, it seemed to him that there was no ground whatever for the reduction of the Vote.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsupported the reduction of the Vote, on the ground that all Irish officials were paid too highly. They had been told that those gentlemen performed their duties from a feeling of patriotism. It was, however, sweetened in the one case by £20,000 a-year—[Mr. HEALY: With £400 a-year for coals.]—and in another by £4,500 a-year. These sums were drawn from the British taxpayer, who had to pay them whether he liked it or not; while if Irishmen, of their own free will, subscribed to maintain their Representatives, who did them good service, any amount of censure was poured out on those Representatives; but on the Treasury Bench were seated Gentlemen who were not ashamed to draw thousands without inquiring whether the British taxpayer was a consenting party.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 12: Majority 85.—(Div. List, No. 307.)
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ Third Resolution agreed to. 1378 Fourth Resolution (£85,482, Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation) read a second time.
§ MR. HEALYdrew attention to the conduct of the Guardians of Donegal Workhouse, who refused some days ago to appoint a Catholic schoolmaster or schoolmistress to superintend the education of the Catholic pauper children. In consequence of the bigotry and intolerance thus manifested by the majority of the Board, who consisted of ex officio members, the chaplain had resigned. The children were now sent unattended from the workhouse to the Catholic chapel in the town. That was in contravention of the Regulations laid down by the Local Government Board. He would make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that instead of driving the people into these institutions, he should do as he did in the case of Carrick-on-Suir—dissolve the Board of Guardians. He ventured to say that if a Roman Catholic Board of Guardians had behaved in a similar manner, the right hon. Gentleman would soon have found a way out of the difficulty. The judgment and heart of the Chief Secretary were always enlisted on the landlord and anti-Catholic side. As a protest against the course which had been pursued, he should move to reduce the Vote by £500, the salary of Mr. Macfarlane, the Inspector upon whose instructions the Chief Secretary acted in these matters. The Irish Party were sometimes charged with too great vehemence in discussing these matters—[Mr. WHITWORTH: Hear, hear!]—but they would continue to bring them before Parliament, in spite of the interruptions of the hon. Member for Drogheda, which was his only contribution to the debate, while he might remark that he had heard a corn crake give utterance to more melodious sounds.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out "£85,482," and insert "£84,982,"—(Mr. Healy,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That '£885,482' stand part of the said Resolution."
§ MR. HARRINGTONsupported the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan. He thought it scandalous that a body like the Local Government 1379 Board, which in no sense represented the wishes of the Irish people, should have the power of shutting out the people in any Union from the ministrations of their clergy, to which the people were entitled in every country under the British Government. It was disgraceful that an effort should have been made to uphold the bigotry of the ex-officio Guardians in the Donegal Union, who had deprived the Catholic inmates of the workhouse of the ministrations of their clergy.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that if he understood aright the complaint in this case, it was that the Local Government Board had not superseded the Guardians because of the withdrawal of the chaplain, or because the Board would not appoint a catechist. It did not appear, however, that there had been any complaint to the Local Government Board. If so, it had not been referred to, either in the Question to-day or in the course of this debate.
§ MR. HARRINGTONI put a Question to the Chief Secretary a fortnight ago on the subject.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)A Question in this House is one matter, and a complaint made to the Local Government Board is another matter. Whether there has been a complaint to the Local Government Board or not I do not know.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that in either case the Local Government Board had no power to elect officers. If there was a valid election, no matter what the religion of the person might be, the Local Government Board could not interfere. He regretted that there should have been any difference between the chaplain and the Board of Guardians; but upon the merits of that difference he was not in a position to speak. He regretted the inconvenience consequent upon it; but that was a matter in reference to which the Local Government Board had no right to interfere.
§ MR. O'KELLYremarked, that if in Unions like Carrick-on-Suir the Local Government Board could supersede Guardians, because they passed political resolutions which were not grateful to the 1380 Government, he thought when a Board of Guardians in Donegal did something infinitely worse—namely, insult the religious feelings of a large portion of the population of Ireland—the Government ought to feel called upon to interfere to protect the people, either by appointing paid Guardians or a sufficient number of ex officio Guardians.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, it could not be thought that a pauper child of 11 years could be competent to explain the doctrines of any religion. The utmost she could do would be to hear the children repeat their catechism by rote. He felt inclined to ask where was the hon. and rev. Member for Donegal (Mr. Kinnear) during this discussion, in which the religious rights of a portion of the constituency were concerned? He was conspicuous by his absence, as was usually the case whenever any good for Ireland was being considered, thereby giving a most subservient support to the Government. He believed that such was the disgust which the action of the Government was creating in Ireland, that, at the next Election, not a single Whig would be returned to Parliament from that country. There would be a few Tories, and the rest Parnellites, as they were called. That was something to look forward to, for the Whigs were hollow shams.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the Local Government Board could have interfered in this matter by withholding their sanction to the appointment of this child as catechist. He desired to call attention to the dietary given in workhouses, a subject which two years ago he brought under the notice of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). Under the administration of the Local Government Board in Ireland, men, women, and children were being systematically starved to death. He had not been able to "obtain a Return of the dietary from all the workhouses in Ireland; but he did obtain the scale of dietary in the Dingle Workhouse. He made an analysis of all the articles in that dietary, which he submitted to the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), with a request that if he found them accurate he should hand them to the right hon. Member for Bradford. It showed, he believed, that the amount of food given 1381 to the inmates of the Dingle Workhouse was far from reaching the minimum of what was necessary to keep in health persons without any work whatever. In the matter of accommodation there was no kind of classification in the workhouses throughout the country. There was no proper system of occupation. He declared that the Inspectors disgracefully and systematically neglected their duties.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 13: Majority 62.—(Div. List, No. 308.)
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ Fifth Resolution (£32,262, Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland) read a second time.
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he did not intend to offer any opposition to this Vote; but he desired to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the extraordinary state of facts that existed in connection with the 31st section of the Land Act. Last year he obtained a Return which disclosed the extraordinary fact that while the Government spent £5,000 or £6,000 on account of the salaries of the persons appointed to carry out the 31st section of the Land Act, they had done nothing for their money, not having disbursed a single shilling to the farmers of Ireland. By a later Return he found that during the last year and a-half, while the salaries and expenses of these gentlemen had cost the country £13,500 per annum, they had only advanced to the farmers, for the purchase of their holdings, the sum of £36,698. The matter, shortly, amounted to this—that it cost 10s. to lend one sovereign to the farmers of Ireland. No doubt it would be said that a great many other applications were approved; but, unless Colonel M'Kerlie and those under him expedited themselves, the House would find next year another extraordinary disclosure of men receiving salaries while they performed no work. Again, he thought that the number of Inspectors was very large to have for the administration of £36,000. Indeed, judged by the manner in which it was stated in the 1382 book, there were 17½ Inspectors, as each of them was paid £300 a-year, and 17 would not divide evenly into the sum total. He supposed, therefore, that there were 17 grown Inspectors and a small boy.
§ MR. COURTNEYThey did not serve the whole year; that is how it occurred.
§ MR. HEALYIndeed. Well, there might have been a note to that effect. He trusted the Board of Works would give the same attention to pruning the salaries of its Inspectors as it did to rejecting applications for loans under the Land Act on trivial pretexts. The number of applications had been 3,610, and the amount applied for £358,000; but only 655 applications, and £36,000 in amount, had been granted. He hoped Colonel M'Kerlie's successor next year would be able to show better results.
§ MR. KENNYcomplained of the action of the Board of Works in relation to the Clare Castle Pier and Harbour. In 1878 the pier had been constructed at a great cost; but some time ago the work was so bad that the Pier split in two, and fell over to one side. In the same way a main drainage scheme was arranged for another portion of the County Clare; but the Drainage Board applied to the Board of Works, who had set themselves to obstruct its completion in every way. The result was that the rivers and lakes in the district had overflown enormously for the past few years, working the most awful destruction in the crops. The Drainage Board was, of course, composed of landlords; and their object was to compel the tenants to bear the entire expense of the drainage scheme. But the Board of Works had, instead of bringing pressure to bear on these landlords, aided and abetted them in every way in their design. Owing to the incompetency and jobbing of the Irish Board of Works, even the little money they did spend was squandered uselessly in imperfect works, which gave no return for the outlay.
§ MR. MOLLOYcomplained of the damage which had been done to the land in the neighbourhood of Meelick and Lusmagh by the non-raising of the sluice-gates there on the occasion of floods. He hoped orders had been given to the officials to open the gates as soon as a flood commenced.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had spoken of the large expenditure incurred in carrying out the clause of the Land Act which enabled occupying tenants to obtain advances, wherewith to improve their holdings. The cost of carrying out the clause was necessarily large, and must continue so unless the Treasury were to abandon every safeguard. It must be remembered that in the case, for instance, of an advance of £50 the Treasury were to go to the expense of visiting the holding from time to time to see that the improvement was carried out, and they had to take other precautions to guard against loss. With regard to the Clare County drainage scheme he did not think the case had been fairly stated by the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny). Under the different relations between landlord and tenant established by the Land Act, was it reasonable to suppose that landowners in the County Clare, who would not be able for 15 years at least—perhaps not at all—to derive any benefit from the operation of a drainage scheme, would be very zealous to take part in and pay half the cost of these schemes? With respect to the floods of the Shannon, he had made some inquiry into the matter, and had received Reports from responsible people. It was not enough to receive Reports from irresponsible people, and upon them to attempt to set aside the statements of officers responsible for these matters. It was true that the Report of a Committee, presided over by a noble Lord opposite, had given a very bad impression as to the operation of the Board of Works; but, on the other hand, he was bound to say that the more he became acquainted with their operations, the more he was struck with the intelligence, shrewdness, sagacity, and care which distinguished the performance of their functions.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that, as this discussion had arisen, he would take the opportunity of saying a few words. He took the opportunity, as it was, perhaps, the last one of the Session, for making a few remarks with regard to two questions—the loans to tenants for improvements under the Land Act and the question of drainage. He feared very much that under the decision in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath" the occupiers would not be entitled to the benefits of 1384 arterial drainage, except so much as the interest on the amount contributed. He thought that the whole of the improvement, with the exception of that arising out of the arterial drainage, would go to the landlord. As regarded advances to tenants, he quite recognized the great difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) had alluded in regard to keeping a sufficient control over the works executed by the tenants without a very large expenditure for engineering supervision. It would always be difficult for a centralized Department in Dublin to administer this section of the Act without a large expense. As an instance of this, he would mention that he received the other day a letter from a solicitor in Ireland, in which it was stated that in an application which was made for a £100 loan, there had been stopped out of the first instalment of £30 or £32 the sum of £8 for a preliminary survey. Now, this survey would have to be followed by a similar inspection in the case of each further instalment as the works were completed, so that it followed that a charge of £15, or 20 per cent. would be levied on the tenant. It was necessary to take care that the works were properly executed, and that overcharges were not made; but this might be done effectively and more cheaply by the Poor Law Board borrowing the money in the first instance, and obtaining the assistance of the surveyors to the Grand Juries. This method would be cheaper, it would give less trouble to the central Department, and it would involve less risk to the State. He would ask the Government to consider these two questions—first, the working of the loan sections of the Land Act of 1881; and, secondly, the arterial drainage of Ireland and the re-organization of the Board of Works. Two Bills had been introduced on the latter question, which had been blocked, as the Secretary to the Treasury complained, by Irish Members; but did not the very fact of those Bills being opposed show that, in the opinion of the Irish Members, the Bills were inadequate, and there was not sufficient time for their discussion? And did not their abandonment by the Government show that the Government were of that opinion also? But he would suggest that between now and next Session the Government should consider the desirability of referring these ques- 1385 tions, which were practical questions, and questions of a non-contentious character, to a Grand Committee consisting of the Irish Members, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, the Irish Law Officers, and the Secretary to the Treasury. He anticipated the result of such a reference would be the striking out of a scheme in reference to these important questions which would be satisfactory to Parliament and to Ireland.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ Subsequent Resolutions to the Eleventh Resolution agreed to.
§ Eleventh Resolution (£278,000, Charge for the Pay, Allowances, &c. of a number of Army Reserve First Class, not exceeding 31,000, and of the Army Reserve Second Class) read a second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought they might very well complain of the course Business had taken during the whole of last week; and a more scandalous proceeding—look at it as they might—could not possibly have taken place than that which hon. Members witnessed on Saturday and Sunday. A large amount of money they were asked to vote without any reasonable or fair discussion; and after Sunday came in, the whole of the Votes were taken absolutely without any discussion at all. Against that he wished to enter a strong protest. After all the time the Government had had given to them, and the new Rules that had come into operation, he ventured to say that, notwithstanding all those advantages which the Government had enjoyed, never in the memory of any man in that House had the Business been worse arranged. He could only regret—and regret deeply—that during the last three weeks of the Session they should have had what amounted to practically the whole work of the Session thrust upon them. He rose now to make a few observations on the Army Reserve Vote, and he was sorry not to see the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War in his place, as he had complained that this question had been raised over and over again. The noble Marquess 1386 said it had been raised three times; whereas they only had a discussion on the Army Estimates coming on, and another which was raised on going into Committee of Supply on Friday. He would go a step further, and say the noble Marquess had no reason to complain of the course taken; as in the finish of the speech he made on the 1st of June, on his (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) Motion, he clearly placed before them a new scheme they had never had till now an opportunity of discussing; and as it had a good deal to do with the Army Reserve Vote he thought it only right and fair to make a few observations now in respect to it. The noble Marquess was then very severe on those who spoke on that (the Opposition) side of the House. He said—"You have nothing to say; you hark back on the old long Service; and you do not tell us anything." He forgot entirely the commencement of his (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) speech, when he told him if he could wipe out the enormous roll of men who deserted in the first 12 months, and even the first 11 months, he would have done a good service. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was very anxious that at least 25 per cent of the men should be old soldiers; and he believed that by the extension of the Service, which the noble Marquess proposed to them, the 25 per cent might be obtained; but then the noble Marquess got up and said that so soon as they filled the ranks, they would not allow any more men to extend that period of their service; and, in his opinion, a more unfortunate statement could not have gone forth to the country. What did that statement amount to? It was practically this—that when they had their ranks filled up they would not allow men who were just as willing and anxious to extend their service as the others, and to make the Army their profession, to do so. They, in fact, took out of them the best years of their lives, and then turned them adrift on the country discontented, and to abuse that Army which they were so anxious to see in an efficient state. Then the noble Marquess stated that there was a deficiency in the Infantry of 8,477 men, and that the total deficiency amounted to 11,000. Further, he told them that there was a large deficiency in India, where they most wanted old soldiers, and also on their 1387 Stations abroad, and in the Colonies, where they were likewise much needed. And yet the noble Marquess know that, at the present time, they were enlisting hundreds and thousands of men whom it would take years to fit for Service. Then the noble Marquess made another most remarkable statement. What did he say? That it was not foreseen that a very large number of men who had enlisted in 1870 and 1871 under the old system would obtain their discharges in 1882 and the following year, and that, had this been foreseen, probably the restriction would not have been imposed. But they all knew it—and those who had had anything to do with the Army in particular knew it, and what could the noble Marquess's Predecessors have been about if he did not know—that the long-service system would come to an end in 1882 and 1883, so that positively the War Office admitted that they did not know these men would leave the Army at that time, and consequently they had failed to take steps to fill up the ranks. That, surely, was a most extraordinary statement. In the speech which he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) made on that occasion he did tell the noble Marquess that one of the reasons why they experienced so much difficulty in getting recruits was from the way in which they were treated when they first joined. He pointed out that if a little more consideration were shown to the men, and they had more food given them, it would, to some extent, enable them to cope with the difficulty. He ventured to say that if any hon. Member saw the quantity of food given to the men he would say at once the rations were not sufficient. And yet what was the answer they received? Why, that it would cost too much money. These men, in consequence of the short supply of food they had, and the hard work they had to go through, took stimulants to keep them up, and in that way they could account for much of the drunkenness that existed in the Army. The men took to drink under the circumstances he had described, and they knew only too well the consequences. Another thing to which he wished to refer was the statement of the noble Marquess that the 48 battalions at their lowest strength would each have 520 men. At the time when that statement was made he (Sir Walter B. Bart- 1388 telot) was not in a position to answer the noble Marquess; but he had since taken some trouble in making inquiries respecting these 520 men, and he found that hardly one of the regiments had 520 men. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) asked that they should be made 600 strong, for that was the lowest number with which they could do garrison work. Again, he had already said that when the short-service system was introduced it was believed they would require, as a consequence of it, an increase of 10,000 men. That was recommended not only by His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, but also by Lord Wolseley. The question was, how was it to be done? Well, he would venture to say that if the noble Marquess could, by improved regulations, get a better class of men in the Army for short, medium, and long service, the waste in the Army would not be so great, and then they would save to the country a clear £500,000. He believed if the noble Marquess went into the question he would find that the very large Estimates they now had need not be exceeded. Look at two Votes, the one for Warlike Stores, and the other for Buildings, and some of these buildings had been very badly done; and he ventured to say the noble Marquess could save enough out of them and other Votes to provide for the 10,000 additional men, which would be of the greatest benefit to the Service. Again, he asked the other day for a Return of soldiers' balances; and on that subject he might say he had received an enormous quantity of applications, which, if he saw them, would simply astonish the noble Marquess. He did hope he would allow a Return of the balances to be printed, and placed before the country, for it was said that out of these they made £4,000 or £5,000 a-year. Certainly, there should be no desire at the War Office to keep back one farthing of what was due to soldiers' relatives, when the soldiers themselves had died and left balances owing to them. Another point was this—they asked the men to extend their services for 21 years, and to leave in their hands their deferred pay of £36. Would they, he asked, find any Englishman who would do that? The men said—and properly said—"We have earned the £36; why are we not to have it, and to do what we please with it?" 1389 Certainly, this practice had prevented men from re-engaging; and he ventured to ask the noble Marquess, as far as he was able, to consider the question. "With respect to the non-commissioned officers, he would suggest that when once a man obtained the stripes he should have the option of extending his length of service, and that, should he after entering into the second period of enlistment do anything to forfeit them, he should not be required to leave the Service, but should be allowed to remain in it as a private soldier for the remainder of the period, so as to give him an opportunity of recovering his position. He trusted the noble Marquess would consider the matters he had ventured to lay before him, with a view of improving the quality of the Army and the inducements to enter it.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURobserved, that their Army in India was now 5,400 men below its Establishment, or about one-tenth short of its proper number. He knew the fatal consequences of allowing that Army to fall below its Establishment at the time of the Mutiny. On January 1st, 1857, immediately before the outbreak, their European Army in India was nearly 6,000 deficient; and he believed that had that 6,000 men been added to the enrolment, many of the great disasters in India would have been averted at that period, and a large portion of the £30,000,000 spent in quelling the Mutiny would have been saved. Some years ago, a large deficiency in the number of our European Forces in India again occurred; and he had called attention through the Press to the serious deficiency, and to the danger therefrom, and matters afterwards improved; but now, again, the Army in India had fallen below its Establishment; and every hon. Member who valued that great Empire would see that he was only doing his duty in calling attention to that grave fact. In the Horse Artillery, the Royal Artillery, and the Cavalry, as well as in the Infantry, the deficiency showed itself; and they ought to have an explanation as to the cause of its existence. Both Recruiting Commissions of 1859 and 1866 repeated that Indian service was so popular that recruits could always be obtained when the other arm of the Service failed to get men; and, there- 1390 fore, if India was allowed to take care of itself, he believed it would be able to find a sufficient number of men to complete the Establishment. And, seeing the large sums contributed by India for the maintenance of the Force in India, it was most objectionable to find the War Office failing the provide the recruits and drafts of men to maintain the garrison in India up to its full strength. It was also most objectionable for the War Office to receive the money of India for providing a deficit, and then not provide specially for India the separate Establishment for training recruits. Nothing could be more hurtful to recruiting than the way in which their soldiers were now employed at home. They were worked to death in useless guard and sentinel duty; and when he recommended to the noble Marquess the employment of watchmen for the discharge of such duties as were not purely military, the noble Marquess replied that he could not do so as it would cost money. There was no greater advocate of economy than himself; but he thought it a false economy to make the Service distasteful to those employed in it by working the soldiers on watch and ward duties, so certain to cause dissatisfaction, and, above all, to cause discipline to be relaxed by the pressure from day and night duties. He earnestly urged upon the noble Marquess the necessity of paying attention to the work of the Army.
CAPTAIN AYLMERremarked, that the Army was now in a worse state than when he joined it; and he believed that if Members of the House who were not military officers had a daily statement of the regiments they would be astounded to see how few men every morning commanding officers had for duty's call. Earlier in the Session the noble Marquess said he was going back some way towards long service; but since then he had intimated that he contemplated after a time reverting to short service. For himself, he felt disappointment at that statement, because short service had been a great blow to the Army, although it was now a fait accompli. During the Recess the noble Marquess would have very seriously to consider the state of the recruiting of the Army and its efficiency, if they were to expect the Service to do in the future what it had done in the past. The mistake that had been committed was in trying to make a Re- 1391 serve with a voluntary system. Such an attempt could not but fail. They might in that way make a nominal Reserve; but they spread discontent among those who might enter the ranks. He believed that the Reserve men had done more to injure recruiting than anything else. The noble Marquess ought to consider the class of men who were being received now. They were taking men of 3 feet 3 inches in height provided they promised to develop into good soldiers. He would not object to that if they had a very large force indeed; but that was not the case, and while they had short service it had to be remembered that it took three years to develop a good soldier. Moreover, the food given was insufficient for growing boys, and the work and night duty they had to do was unsuitable for them. It was useless enlisting these men for foreign service. It was well known that the Army was depleted at the time of the Egyptian War, every man who could pass the doctor for foreign service being required to make the regiments up to their proper strength. This question as to the best mode of restoring the Army to its condition in days of yore was one worthy for the noble Marquess to grapple with and consider.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLalso expressed the disappointment which he felt at hearing the noble Marquess state it was not his intention to persevere with the experiment he had promised to make in the direction of reviving the system of long service, for unless that was done it would be impossible to maintain the strength of these forces in India and in the Colonies. He feared the noble Marquess had allowed someone else to overrule his own sound judgment.
§ DR. FARQUHARSONdrew attention to the insufficiency of the rations supplied to the troops, and mentioned that the recruits at Caterham recently who had very hard work to do suffered so much in this respect that the men were compelled to spend from 3d. to 4d. a-day out of their pay for food. At present a soldier got practically nothing to eat between his dinner at half-past 12 and his breakfast next morning. When he was assistant-surgeon in the Guards he and his colleagues recommended, over and over again, the propriety of adding another quarter of a pound of meat daily to the rations. He was sure that to this 1392 shortness of food was due, not only the intemperance of the Army, but the distressing tendency of the men of the Guards to consumption.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that what he stated the other night as to the temporary character of the changes, announced by him two months ago, appeared to have been misunderstood. The whole of these changes were of a temporary character; but some of them were also of a experimental character; and if they were found to work well there was no foregone conclusion on his part to adopt them merely as temporary measures. The Government had no intention, and he did not think the country was prepared, to give up the prospect of forming a sufficient Reserve to be called out in cases of great emergency. It must be evident that if inducements were offered to men to extend their service after they had completed seven or eight years with the Colours a heavy blow would be inflicted on the Reserve, and that was the part of the recent changes which the Government did not desire permanently to maintain. The part of the changes which he understood the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) to approve was, the experimental adoption in the Guards of the system of enlisting men for 12 years—that was, three years with the Colours and nine with the Reserve, and at the same time giving a certain number of men who desired to extend their service the option of doing so. He was informed that the plan, as far as it had been tried, had proved a very successful one, and that a large number of recruits for the Guards had been found. If that experiment should continue to be successful, and it was found that a very large number of recruits came forward, and that a sufficient number of these men were willing to extend their service with the Colours, he thought it exceedingly probable that an attempt in that direction might be made with regard to the whole Army. But, of course, in the short time during which the experiment had been in operation, it was impossible to say whether or not it should be extended to the whole Army. In regard to what had been said about the short-service system, and the recommendation of Lord Wolseley that the Army should be increased by 10,000 men, he had to say that the Establishment had been very 1393 considerably increased. It was increased by his Predecessor by about 3,000 men, and it was increased in the present year by more than 1,000 men. No doubt the Indian and Colonial reliefs could not be efficiently carried out with the present Establishment; but the present Establishments were founded on careful actuarial calculations, and it did not follow that, because at the present time it had been found impossible adequately to supply the existing want, the Establishments would be permanently inadequate. The battalions in India and at home had not yet reached their normal state. Further experience was required before they could arrive at the conclusion that the number of Establishments so fixed was insufficient for the purposes intended. The hon. and gallant Member had urged some increase in the rations, and had said that any cost entailed thereby might easily be met by a reduction in the Vote for Warlike Stores and Buildings. It was very easy to say that; but when they were on that Vote they found it very difficult to say where any reduction in it could be made; and, indeed, the provision already made for that service was, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite, insufficient. With regard to buildings, whenever a reduction was wanted, that was always the quarter where they were made; but he did not think it was to the public advantage to reduce the barracks where the soldiers were quartered or the fortifications of the country. With regard to the suggestion as to publishing Returns, he did not think that of any practical use, for the classes most interested in these matters were not likely to inquire into Parliamentary Returns. The subject of sentinel duty was under consideration, and he had asked the authorities to look carefully into the matter and see whether it could not be reduced.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 11: Majority 89.—(Div. List, No. 309.)
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ Twelfth Resolution (£34,000, Miscellaneous Effective Services) read a second time.
§ SIR JOHN HAYcalled attention to the undefended condition of the Clyde. Except a few guns on Dumbarton Castle there was nothing to defend Glasgow. 1394 He believed there had been a proposal to fortify the Lesser Cumbrae; and he should like to know whether it was intended to proceed with the necessary protection of the Estuary of the Clyde?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not think any provision had been made for works in that quarter. The Committee presided over by Lord Morley had inquired into the defences of our commercial harbours generally. The defences of the Clyde, he believed, occupied the attention of the Committee, and their recommendations were under the consideration of the Inspector General of Fortifications. As soon as he had completed his investigations, it would be for him to state what Her Majesty's Government proposed to do.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ Thirteenth Resolution (£241,800, Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges of the War Office) read a second time.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked for some explanation why the hospital ship, so fully equipped with beds, medical stores, and comforts of every description, as well as with medical officers, was not sent from Alexandria to Ismailia to receive the sick and wounded immediately on the troops disembarking, instead of being three days at least behind, whereby the medical arrangements for the troops on shore were all deranged? Also, what measures were in progress to induce men in India whose term of Service had expired to volunteer to remain on payment of a bounty, as formerly so successfully offered?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it was not desirable that he should go into details on the medical question, on which Lord Wolseley and some of the authorities differed, as the question would come up next Session. Up to this time the War Office had not received any information as to the number of men in India who would avail themselves of the permission to extend their term of service; and until the information was received it was impossible to say what number of men would be required for India.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ Fourteenth and Fifteenth Resolutions agreed to.
1395§ Sixteenth Resolution (£ 1,134,000, Retired Pay, Retired Full Pay, and Gratuities for Reduced and Retired Officers, including Payments awarded by the Army Purchase Commissioners) read a second time.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that he had been waiting for a long time to call attention to the case of Purchase officers and the manner in which they had been dealt with by the War Office authorities. In the case he referred to—and he would confine himself to the Purchase Colonels—the officers had been treated very badly on their compulsory retirement. He recollected very well, when Mr. Cardwell was passing his scheme through the House of Commons, that he promised that no officer should be worse off, or in a worse position, after Purchase was abolished than during the time that it existed. The senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) moved a Resolution to the effect that the regulation money should be paid back to every officer, and in a very full House the Motion was defeated by a very small majority. If the House had been wise and prudent, then justice would have been done to the officers, and full satisfaction given to every one of them. Twice since that time their case had been inquired into by Royal Commissions, who had made recommendations. Every time the question was raised, he had advocated justice being done to the officers by returning their regulation money. In 1878 the War Office dealt with the subject of the officers in a strange way; but that was a mere joke when contrasted with the Warrant of 1881 brought out by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. In that Royal Warrant the cases of the subalterns, the captains, the majors, and the colonels were dealt with; but he would only deal with the case of the colonels, leaving it to his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Henry Fletcher) to deal with the other officers affected by the scheme. He complained, first of all, that the Purchase Colonels under the old system on retiring did not get back their regulation money. Under the old system, when an officer became a colonel, he was allowed to remain, if he chose to do so, with his regiment until, by promotion, he became a General Officer. Then he got neither regulation nor over-regulation money; but if he chose to 1396 retire on half pay, he got his over-regulation money; if he sold out he got both regulation and over-regulation. But this plan, after the abolition of Purchase, was found to keep a number Of officers from getting promotion, and after a time the colonels were taken away from their regiments; and in some instances, but not in all, they were given the command of regimental districts, and they were allowed to remain colonels until they became General Officers. In 1881, the Purchase officers who had purchased their majority, and were lieutenant-colonels of regiments, came under the five years' rule; they were placed on half-pay, and had their over-regulation money returned, but their regulation money was kept; and they were told they could retire upon a pension of £420, but they must refund their over-regulation price. This was a cruel hardship. Surely, when a man was placed on half-pay compulsorily, he ought to retain the over-regulation money which had been returned to him. He would now only mention two cases to show how hardly officers had been dealt with. The first was that of Major General Rose, who, having been compulsorily retired with the rank of Major General, wrote to say that he considered that he was entitled to receive the regulation value of his commission. He was at the top of the colonels entitled to promotion; but he had been compulsorily retired, although a paid Aide-de-Camp to the Queen, and fit and willing to remain in the Service. He now claimed the £4,500 which he had sunk in his Profession; for after 40 years doing his duty to his Queen and country, he was worse off at the finish than the man who had never paid anything at all for his commission. Colonel Blackett's was a similar case, being arbitrarily retired by order in June, 1881. He also claimed £4,500, the price of his lieutenant colonelcy; but he had not received that, but was deprived of future employment. Now, these were cases of exceptional severity and injustice; and he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) considered that he had a right to demand that the cases of the Purchase Colonels should be inquired into by a thoroughly impartial Committee of that House, or of independent General Officers, so that they should be able to explain their grievances and have them rectified, and he hoped 1397 that the noble Marquess would see that justice was done in every case, as had been promised by Mr. Cardwell when the Purchase system was abolished.
SIR HENRY FLETCHERheartily endorsed everything which his hon. and gallant Friend had said with regard to the colonels. He desired to call attention to the case of the Purchase Captains of the Army, who had been unfairly dealt with, and who were now in a worse position than the Purchase Colonels since 1881. By the Warrant of that year the minimum pension to a retired captain was fixed at £259, and in no case to exceed £300. In some cases there had been a temporary rank of lieutenant-colonel granted, for which the officers were very thankful. In some cases there was a substantive rank of major, which enabled the widow to obtain a larger pension. What he complained of was that officers had compulsorily to retire, and were not allowed to retire at their own request. In some cases they had to retire rather than submit to the indignity of being placed under the junior officers of their own regiments. One case he would give—namely, that of Colonel Beasely, late of the 83rd Regiment, retired on £280 a-year, after a junior had been put over him causing him to resign. Also the case of Colonel Clarke, who had to retire under less than £300 a-year. All he asked was that the Secretary of State for War would take these cases into consideration, and with a desire to do them justice. Surely it was not a very large sum—only £929 a-year—that was required to do justice in their case. It was an amount which would be reduced every year, because officers could not expect to live for ever. He thought that it was only fair that their cases should be inquired into, and justice done to the hopes and expectations of men who had long and faithfully served their Queen and country at home and abroad.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he understood the contention to be that the pecuniary prospects of these officers had been damaged by the Royal Warrant; but that was denied by the War Office. They were entitled to retired full pay of £1 a-day, or, if they preferred to remain in the Service, they were entitled to half-pay, with the additional prospect of becoming General 1398 Officers, and succeeding to honorary colonelcies. When the Warrant of 1881 compulsorily retired these officers at a certain age, in compensation for these pecuniary prospects they were given £420 a-year retired pay, instead of £365 a-year, to which they would have been otherwise entitled.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTThey had sunk all their money.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, they had sunk their money for the prospects he had just stated. They obtained £420 a-year at once, in lieu of the £365. Although a grievance undoubtedly existed in the case of some of the colonels thus retired, in many cases the allowance granted was more than an equivalent to the loss they sustained by the issue of the Warrant. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex had said the officers were compelled, under certain circumstances, to refund their over-regulation money. They were only compelled to do that if they retired before they were compulsorily retired; if, in other words, they retired for their own convenience. It was impossible to make an equitable distinction between the claims of the 25 officers who would have been compulsorily retired in 1881, and the case of more than 100 other officers who voluntarily retired for exactly the same reason, although they had not reached the age at which they would have been compulsorily retired. It was asked that a Committee of the House, or else a Committee of officers of the Army, might be appointed to consider the claims of these officers. The claims in question had been already fully considered by the Department, and had been on more than one occasion discussed in the House of Commons. It appeared to him that no recommendation of a Committee could justify the Government in departing from the principle which was absolutely necessary for the protection of the Public Service. It would be impossible for the Government to accede to the proposal to appoint a Committee, because he believed it could be shown that, from a pecuniary point of view, these officers had been equitably, and even liberally dealt with.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ Seventeenth and Eighteenth Resolutions agreed to.
1399§ Nineteenth Resolution (£32,900, Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals and the In-Pensioners thereof) read a second time.
SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked what course the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War intended to pursue with regard to the Report of the Committee on the Chelsea Hospital, who had recourse to the strong measure of recommending the annulling of certain Army pensions and the abolition of the Secretary's office in view of the duties being carried on by the Lieutenant Governor? He trusted that the second reading of the Soldiers' Pensions and Yeomanry Pay Bill would not be taken to-night, because it was very necessary there should be ample opportunity for discussing the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the object of the Bill to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred was to abolish the statutory powers which were now exercised by the Boards of the Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals, and to vest in the Secretary of State the power of interpreting, as he did in other cases, the meaning of Warrants. Great inconvenience had, on more than one occasion, been found to result from the exercise of the powers of the Board in this respect. There was no present intention of acting upon the recommendation that the awarding of pensions should be transferred from the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital to the War Office; and, therefore, the matter must come up for further consideration by the Secretary of State. The remaining recommendations related to matters of detail, which would have to be carefully considered, and any changes to be made would be embodied in a measure which would come before the House. Care would be taken that full compensation should be given to the holders of appointments that might be abolished.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ Twentieth and Twenty-first Resolutions agreed to.
§ Twenty-second Resolution (£48,000, Retired Allowances, &c. to Officers of the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteer Forces) read a second time.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFadvocated the distribution of honorary dis- 1400 tinctions among Volunteers distinguished for long service.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth Resolutions agreed to.
§ Twenty-fifth Resolution (£10,400, Expense of Martial Law, &c.) read a second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERONdrew attention to the Clyde Court Martial, held at Portsmouth, in December last. He stated that by the sentence of the Court an honourable and gallant officer had been dismissed from the Service, and socially in part, and financially altogether, ruined for life. He confessed that he stood there in a difficult and delicate position—difficult, because he knew how hard it was to move the House to take cognizance of such matters as courts martial, and because he felt conscious of his own inability to lay clearly and distinctly before the House the grievances of which he had to complain; and delicate, in consequence of the relationship which existed between himself and the person who suffered by the sentence of the court martial. He had no wish or intention to impugn the conduct of Lord Northbrook or the Admiralty in connection with the inquiry; but he thought that, as all men were mortal, so were they prone to error. All that he should impute to Lord Northbrook, on the present occasion, was that he had committed an error in judgment, although it was an error in judgment which had sentenced an unfortunate gentleman to a very severe punishment. The principal witnesses by whose evidence Commander Maxwell-Heron was condemned were four in number. They were Mr. Fitzgerald, gunner, who was second in command of the Clyde; Bourne, the boatswain's mate; Seabright, an able-bodied seaman; and Hadden, a ship's corporal. Fitzgerald was appointed to a very important post in the Clyde by the Admiralty, and, as second in command, he had great power. The Admiralty, in making the appointment, showed that they had great confidence in him, and, no doubt, his (Captain Maxwell-Heron's) brother had the same confi- 1401 dence in him; but it was for the overweening trust and confidence in Mr. Fitzgerald that the Commander of the Clyde now occupied the unfortunate position in which he was placed. In some of the charges Fitzgerald's was the main evidence; indeed, in the principal charges against this honourable and gallant officer that was so; and he (Captain Maxwell-Heron) was prepared to assert, in the most emphatic manner, in that House that that evidence was prejudiced, interested, and, in one instance, perjured. Fitzgerald was himself afterwards tried by court martial and sentenced to be dismissed the Service, with disgrace. But, although he was admitted as evidence, and although his evidence, interested as it was, and prejudiced as it must have been—because, in order to shield himself, he sought to accuse his Commander—and though his evidence, in the main, was uncorroborated, it was accepted generally by the Court, and not subjected to rigid criticism and examination by the members of the Court as it ought to have been. Such, at least, was the opinion of an able and eminent counsel before whom the case had been laid, and who, after patiently wading through the evidence, came to the conclusion that Commander Heron ought to have an appeal to another tribunal. If it was the fact that it was mainly on the evidence of this man Fitzgerald that the most serious charges were proved, then he maintained that his brother, the Commander of the Clyde, had not had justice done to him. But, besides that, the Commander of the Clyde was summoned by the Admiralty to appear as a witness on the court martial upon that fellow; but, extraordinary to relate—and he did not know why—Commander Heron was not called, and had no opportunity of refuting the disparaging evidence of the gunner. The next witness in the case was Bourne, the boatswain's mate. After the preliminary Court of Inquiry, held at Aberdeen, Bourne was imprisoned by order of the Admiralty, and kept in close confinement for more than a fortnight, and then suddenly released; and, although he had denied before the preliminary Court that he had ever kept a rough expense book at all, yet, when released, he gave diametrically opposite evidence, and came forward to swear that not only had he kept a rough ex- 1402 pense book, but that he had been ordered by the Commander to tear three pages out of it. Happily for Commander Heron, the court martial did not believe the evidence of Bourne, which, indeed, was contradicted by Fitzgerald. Bourne was really a self-confessed liar. He would now give a short narrative of the case, stating the facts as briefly as possible. On the 26th of September last year a letter was handed to the Commander of the Clyde through Fitzgerald from Hadden, the ship's corporal. The letter complained that certain stores had been taken out of the ship and made away with. The Commander of the Clyde called the man on the quarter-deck, and asked him what evidence he had in support of the charges he had made? The man said he would produce it, and it would be easy to produce witnesses. He was then remanded for 48 hours. As the Clyde laid alongside of the jetty it was easy for him to have gone into the town and brought up his witnesses. The Commander of the Clyde was away for two days on leave, and on his return he was told by Gunner Fitzgerald that he had placed Hadden in arrest, because instead of going to procure the witnesses necessary to substantiate his charges he had gone to the Commander's tradesmen, using his name, and had demanded the bills of the Commander. The Commander sent for Hadden, who said he should still be able to bring evidence. Endorsing the action of his second in command, Commander Heron remanded the case for 24 hours. At the end of that time the Commander again sent for the man, and asked him—"Have you any further evidence?" And his reply was that he would produce evidence when he had an impartial officer to hear it. In the end the Commander ordered Hadden to be disrated. In the meantime, Hadden wrote what was called an informal letter. It was a letter which ought to have been forwarded through the Commanding Officer; but it was sent direct to the Admiralty—or, rather, straight to the Duke of Edinburgh, who was in command of the Naval Reserves. A telegram was then received from Captain Douglas, ordering the Commander of the Clyde not to disrate Hadden. The Commander was naturally very anxious to take Hadden's position into consideration, and that he 1403 should withdraw the charge; but he never suggested such a thing. Subsequently, on the 16th of October, Hadden was ready to withdraw the charge. He said he would go no further with it. But this was not deemed sufficient. The Commander said he must withdraw the charge altogether. The man then withdrew the charge, and Commander Heron intimated that he had done so; but he received a letter from the Admiralty stating that there would be a Court of Inquiry held on the subject. The Court was ordered and held, and one of the members of the Court was Captain Best, who had previously been on unfriendly terms with the Commander of the Clyde. He should have thought that any man in Captain Best's position—any man actuated by the feelings of a gentleman—would have asked to be relieved from sitting on such an inquiry. However, that course of action did not suggest itself to Captain Best. Commander Heron, who had been suffering from a severe cold, which almost resulted in congestion of the lungs, had to rise from a sick bed to attend the inquiry. Bourne, the boatswain's mate, was asked the question whether he had kept a rough expense-book, and he replied that he had not; Seabright, the painter, was asked whether he had ever taken paint to the Commander's house, and he said that he had not. The result of the inquiry was that the Commander of the Clyde was placed under arrest, as were also Fitzgerald, Seabright, and two other members of the ship's company. They were kept waiting for 28 weary days, and then it was found by the Admiralty that charges had been made which must be formally investigated. He then found that against him were formulated 14 charges, some of them serious, based upon the evidence taken at the inquiry at Aberdeen. The Commander, in the meantime, was deprived of his command, and was ordered to report himself at Portsmouth, in order to be tried by court martial. Although the Admiralty had taken 28 days to formulate the charges, they only gave this unfortunate officer six clear days to get up his reply. The time was altogether insufficient, and the Admiralty refused him a copy of the Minute of charges against him. How was it possible to get up rebutting evidence in six days? Yet that was all the time allowed. There 1404 was not a single executive commissioned officer on the ship except the Commander himself. He stood alone; and there was evidently a conspiracy against him. If he (Captain Maxwell-Heron) believed his brother guilty of the heavier charges brought against him, he would not be standing there in that House to defend him; but it was because he did not believe him to be guilty that he had been induced to bring the case forward. Neither did he nor his (Commander Heron's) brother officers believe him to be guilty. His brother officers in the Navy testified to his high character. None of them refused to shake him by the hand and say how very sorry for him they were, and how much they sympathized with him. Commander Heron was well known; he was acquainted personally with many Members of that House, and he was known to be scrupulously careful in the discharge of his duty. Was it conceivable that he could have been guilty of such practices in order to oppress a ship's corporal and hide his own misdeeds? The second charge was a very serious one—namely, that he had constantly sent false Returns to the Admiralty. This was the charge made in the informal letter sent to the Admiral; although the practice was, no doubt, irregular, it was not uncommon. The charge was based upon documentary evidence signed by the ship's corporal, which, however, was held to be sufficient to substantiate it. Part of the documentary evidence against the Commander consisted of an account signed not by Messrs. Taylor, who purported to sign it, but by the ship's corporal in their name, without appending to the name the word "signed." The third charge was also a serious one. It was for allowing the sale of ship's stores, a high-sounding name for old ropes and yarns, which from time immemorial had been sold out of ships to be replaced by blacklead, paint, &c. He knew that it was a breach of the Admiralty Regulations; but he had it from the lips of admirals, captains, and lieutenants that the rule was more honoured in the breach than the observance. To substantiate the charge there was only the evidence of Fitzgerald as to the sales, and there was no document to prove that Commander Heron gave any authority for the sales. At the present moment the Commander denied that he 1405 gave any orders for the sales. Yet it was on the gunner's evidence that the charge had been found proved. There was a curious point about this charge. Fitzgerald, who asserted that leave had been given himself, denied sales that he was proved to have made in the absence of the Commander in the month of June. If the Commander had given leave for any sale, why should the gunner have denied that any took place? Surely such a point ought to have been submitted to the First Lord and to the Judge Advocate General; but he (Captain Maxwell-Heron) had himself asked if the case had been submitted, and he was told that there was no reason for doing so. The seventh charge related to the tearing out of some leaves from a book of expenses. A book was produced with three pages torn out; and if it had not been for the shrewdness of Mr. Bullen, who acted as the prisoner's friend, it would not have been discovered that these three pages did not correspond with the lined pages in the book produced. Another book was therefore produced, from which three pages had also been torn, and probably other books might have been found by the witness in the same condition. Was it possible to conceive that a man, though he might be a knave, would give an order to any man to tear three pages out of a book when he might have destroyed the book altogether? Then there was a charge that the Commander appropriated the ship's paint. Well, the house he occupied in Aberdeen cost £100 a-year, completely furnished; and yet the witness Seabright, who was employed to do the painting, said that he used 3 cwt. of paint in decorating it. It was impossible at the moment to get evidence to rebut that statement, because the venue had been changed from Aberdeen to Portsmouth. But since then the foreman of a very large firm in London had been sent down, with orders to measure the amount of paint that was used in the house. He had that man's affidavit, in which he stated that the whole of the paint used in the work done at the house, at the highest possible computation, was 110 lbs. The architect and builder of the house also stated the amount of paint used as being from 75 to 78 lbs.; and if an average were struck between those two estimates the amount would be about 95 lbs. But 1406 there was no order given by the Commander of the Clyde—nor did it appear on the evidence—that the ship's paint should be used; and, further, there was evidence that he said that what was wrongly used was to be replaced. Further, it was stated by Seabright that one day, when the Commander of the Clyde saw him coming from the ship with a plank, he asked him where he was going with that plank, and when the man replied, "To your house," the Commander of the Clyde said that everything he took out of the ship must be replaced, and that an account must be kept. That showed that there was no intention to defraud the Government of a single 6d. So far from desiring to take anything from the ship's stores, the Commander of the Clyde had, out of his own pocket, spent about £9 in painting on board the vessel, and he had not thought for a moment that the paint used by Seabright would be used for his house without being replaced. Then there was a charge against the Commander of having used some of the ship's coal in his own house. The only foundation for that charge was, that when he went there the house had not been used for some time, and he asked Fitzgerald to let him have a little coal to air the room in which he intended to sleep. But he never gave orders that Fitzgerald should get the coal from the ship's store; and, if he did, it was certainly intended that it should be replaced. It appeared that Fitzgerald sent three sacks of coal, although it was not proved in evidence that the coal was ever received into the house, because a witness stated that, finding nobody in the house, he threw the coal over the wall. It was a curious fact that the Commander of the Clyde was accused of having used coal that was sent from the ship to the house on the 3rd of February, whereas the chief witness said it was sent in November, or, at all events, before Christmas. That was the man who was supposed to have taken the coal. The Commander of the Clyde never knew until the day of the inquiry that even so much as three sacks of coal had been sent to the house; but he thought it was only a small quantity to air the room. The next charge had reference to a carpet, of the value of a few shillings. The explanation of that matter was, that it 1407 was reported to Commander Heron that the carpet had fallen overboard and been lost. He believed the story of the men who afterwards gave evidence against him, and signed a certificate presented by them, which he had since learned to be false. It had never, however, been proved, nor did it appear in evidence, that the carpet was not lost, although something was said about its having been seen in Fitzgerald's room after it was reported to have been lost. Then, again, there was a charge of taking a table and chair belonging to the ship. It was quite true that the Commander of the Clyde had a chair and table taken to his house, to have them repaired at his own expense, and to utilize them; but he had never dreamt of stealing them, and it was all along his intention to return them. To find the Commander of the Clyde guilty of an offence in that instance was a most extraordinary proceeding, because when he (Captain Maxwell-Heron) was in camp it was a common practice among the officers to take their barrack furniture into their tents. He had done so frequently, but he always returned it; and he should have been much surprised when he did so if a charge of this kind had been brought against him. He had, therefore, been much surprised at the decision of the court martial. As to the alleged sale of dance tickets to the public, the Commander of the Clyde never gave any such sanction. All he did was to allow each seaman to take three or four tickets to dispose of on his own responsibility—which was done in the Service every day at Chatham and Plymouth; and the object of the sale of the tickets was to form a charitable fund. Yet the Commander was convicted, on the evidence of Fitzgerald alone, of having authorized the sale of these tickets to the public. He had no time to go into the case more fully; but he contended that, under all the circumstances of the case, the finding of the court martial might have been referred to the revision of the Judge Advocate General. In other courts martial there had been a revision of the sentence; but there had not been the slightest suggestion, on the part of the Admiralty, that they would be willing to commute the sentence upon the Commander of the Clyde. Only very recently, in the case of two young officers 1408 tried by a court martial and sentenced to be dismissed the Service, there had been a commutation of the punishment. Therefore, under all the circumstances of the case, and taking into consideration the long services of the Commander of the Clyde, he hoped he might appeal to the clemency of the Government and of the Admiralty. It had been hinted to him that by bringing the case forward now the gates of mercy at the Admiralty would be for ever shut; but he appealed to the Prime Minister, who, he knew, had a kind heart and good and generous impulses, and also to Lord Northbrook, to reconsider the case. He asked for nothing more; and he only asked for that on the ground that the decision had been founded on the evidence of perjured witnesses, one of whom had since been tried by court martial and dismissed the Service with disgrace. He appealed to the mercy of the Admiralty, and also to the mercy of that House. He did not wish to take a Division on the question. Indeed, it would be foolishness "for him to do so. ["No!"] No doubt there were many Gentlemen present who were ready to support him; but, still, he thought it would be unwise to press the matter to a Division. In conclusion, he would, therefore, appeal to the mercy of the House and of the Government, in the full hope that justice might be done.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that, after the touching appeal which had been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on behalf of his brother, he felt sure the House would extend its indulgence to him, in consequence of the appeal which had been made to him in reference to the subject under discussion. He recognized the fact that the House was not a Court of Appeal from a court martial or a Court of Law; but when those in authority had not taken the course which the House expected, in obedience to Act of Parliament, with regard to matters tried by court martial, then he thought it quite right that the case should be brought forward as it had been by his hon. and gallant Friend, and that an opportunity should be given to lay before the House and the public circumstances which required their attention. He intervened in this case because he was one of the few naval officers who had a seat in that House, and also because Mr. Heron, 1409 the late Commander of the Clyde, served with him for five years. As the House would readily admit, any officer who had served under him (Sir John Hay) with credit and distinction, deserved at his hands some recognition of his merits when, unfortunately, under the circumstances which had just been detailed, he was, for the moment, under a cloud. He could only say this of the gallant officer—now no longer an officer, he was sorry to say—that he was a loss to Her Majesty's Service, and that he had served not only "with diligence, attention, and sobriety, and was always obedient to command," but also having all the creditable distinctions attached to the certificate of a naval officer. He should also like to say this. He was, as many another man had been, as a lad, poor; that was to say, he had not as large an allowance as many other men. But he was most scrupulous in money affairs; he was never in debt; and, having endorsed his bills for him, he (Sir John Hay) knew that he always kept within his allowance. It was only fair to say this of a man who was now suffering from the suggestion—if these allegations were true—of being dishonest. He knew it was not a good thing to quote Latin; but nemo repente fuit turpissimus. A man did not become dishonest all of a sudden. Mr. Heron was an officer for 32 years; and although he had not distinguished himself greatly, because he had no opportunities for distinction, he did his duty like a man, and with credit to the Service. He was always fond of active service; but for family reasons which did him honour, in order to make a home for his mother and sister, he took a Coastguard command. As soon as he could get away from that Coastguard command, he was employed in Her Majesty's ship Seagull, and sent to the Coast of Africa. He was there two years doing excellent service; and in 1878 he was withdrawn from the Coast of Africa, and sent to the Mediterranean. From thence he was sent to the Red Sea, and he served there with great advantage to the public. He (Sir John Hay) had seen a letter from a man whom they all respected, and who was familiarly known as "Chinese Gordon," who was associated with Mr. Heron at Massowah. The letter was of recent date, and it fully recognized the good service done by the 1410 Commander of the Clyde in the Red Sea. The Coast of the Red Sea was but a short road to a diseased liver. The gallant officer's health broke down, and he returned to this country invalided. He knew that it was intended at the time to promote him, to place him on the Retired List of Captains, and to give him an assured income for the rest of his life. But he was anxious to serve; he did not wish to eat the bread of idleness; he made interest to be retained as a Commander on active service, rather than be retired as a captain, and the result was his appointment to this wretched Clyde. There he found a complete change. Instead of having two officers under him, he suddenly found himself in charge of this hull, lying in dock, without being on board, obliged to live in a hired house, on which, by the way, he was supposed to have used the Queen's paint to the amount of £3 12s. 6d. Who could believe it of a man like that? The gallant officer lived in this house, and he had as his second in command on board the Clyde a man of the name of Fitzgerald. This man was not a commissioned officer, but a gunner in the Navy, whom Mr. Heron was desired to trust. There were many good, excellent, and trustworthy gunners in the Navy; but this man was neither good, excellent, nor trustworthy, although he was supposed to be so. The Admiralty gave him a high character, and the Commander of the Clyde thought so highly of him that, whenever he went on leave, he left Fitzgerald in charge of the ship and of the stores, supposing him to be thoroughly trustworthy. Among the duties of the gunner was that of keeping the canteen, and attending to the dances on board the Clyde, which had been alluded to. They were dances evidently approved of by the Admiralty, because gas was led into the ship for that purpose. Commander Heron did not lay down the gas, but found it there; and it was to induce the men to come up for training, and to make the Service popular, that the dances were given under the management of the gunner, with the sanction of the Admiralty. As he bad said, the gunner kept the canteen; and although he knew it was his duty to put out the ship's lights at 11, he himself confessed that he had kept them going after 11, because he had not sold all the 1411 beer. With this the Commander had nothing whatever to do; he was not expected to be there to watch the proceedings of the gunner. The dances went on when he was supposed to be away, and he was in no way in charge of them. The House would, therefore, see that this gallant officer was placed in an entirely novel position. He had served with distinction on the Coast of Africa and in the Red Sea, and he had done his duty like a man. All of a sudden he was put in a novel position. He (Sir John Hay) would not say that some of these charges did not show negligence on the part of Commander Heron, and there might have been some slackness and some neglect in his conduct; but, still, negligence might be dealt with leniently, and he confessed that the severity of the sentence appalled him. If this gallant officer was to blame, it must be remembered that his health had broken down, and he had better have consented to be placed on the Retired List. But, still, he was anxious to serve, and he accepted the command. The cold climate of Aberdeen, after the heat of the Red Sea and the Coast of Africa, told upon his health, and laid him up frequently. Indeed, his health and constitution had been so impaired that he was not able to give that zealous attention to his duties which he (Sir John Hay) had no doubt he desired to do. He was not going into the question of the charges or of the Court of Inquiry; but he would pass to the court martial, and he asked the attention of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty to the remarks he had to make on that subject. He took no exception to the officers who composed the Court; there was not one of them to whom he would not be ready to submit his life and honour; but it must be remembered that five was the smallest number that could constitute a court martial. That Court ought to have been formed of seven officers, because Captain Codrington of the Excellent and Captain Gordon of the Vernon were in harbour. They were both given fictitious leave by the Admiralty; but they must have done their duty notwithstanding, because, as the old law said, if they were "within sound of gun or sight of the flag," they were bound to come to court martial, even if on leave. If Captain Heron had challenged the constitution of the Court they would have 1412 been bound to attend; but as the point was not brought before him he did not do so, and the court martial was composed of five officers only. He had been told that the decision of the Court was arrived at by the bare majority of three to two; but, as the House would be aware, there was no means of testing that statement, because when a court martial was closed it was impossible to know how the votes were given, and the decision must, therefore, be supposed to have been unanimous. He considered the Admiralty were to blame for making a small Court, when they could have made a large one, to try a matter of such importance. Well, this Court was formed; the House knew what was the sentence; the officer's sword was broken, and the sentence was communicated to the Admiralty. He had himself been a Lord of the Admiralty, and knew something of the procedure there in former days. He was so much trusted by his hon. Friends below him in 1874, that, although on the Retired List, he had been selected as one who should be recommended to Her Majesty to be First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, and he had, therefore, such experience as would probably lead the House to suppose that he did not speak in this case without knowledge. His hon. Friend opposite would, therefore, take his statement for what it was worth. In those days, as soon as the Report of the proceedings of a court martial arrived at the Admiralty they were examined by the Secretary to the Department—he was speaking of the Permanent Secretary to the Admiralty, who, in those days, was Mr. Romaine, and who, at the time of the Crimean War, was Judge Advocate General. He was a person on whose opinion reliance could be placed; but in addition to the scrutiny which the proceedings underwent at his hands, they were submitted to each Sea Lord in succession, beginning with the Junior Lord, each of whom made minutes on the proceedings; and if any doubt as to the proceedings of the court martial was suggested, the question was submitted to the Counsel of the Admiralty, then Mr., now Baron, Huddleston, who reported on it, and if no irregularities had been committed the. proceedings were approved. What he found fault with was that when the hon. and learned Member for Hereford (Mr. Reid), and 1413 the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham (Mr Arnold Morley), put Questions on this subject, the Secretary to the Admiralty told them that the Admiralty authorities refused to submit the proceedings to the Counsel of the Admiralty. He was told that the person who was doing duty in the absence of the Counsel of the Admiralty had expressed surprise that the matter had not been submitted to him. At the present moment the Admiralty had not Mr. Romaine as Permanent Secretary, but Mr. Swainson, who, although an excellent public servant, was no lawyer, and had no experience of the law. That being so, he could not, and he did not, believe that his hon. Friend could regard an opinion of his, from a legal point of view, as of any value. As a matter of fact, no legal mind had been brought to bear on the question at all; and although Members of that House had repeatedly urged that the papers should be referred to the proper Officers, whom the House paid for their services, the Admiralty had not so referred them. Well, the Admiralty thought they were the best judges of the matter; but he hoped the House would forgive him if he read the opinion of an eminent Queen's Counsel, to whom the papers had been submitted. This gentleman, Mr. Kekewich, was perfectly impartial, and know nothing of the case beyond that which was disclosed in the papers laid before him. He said—
I think that the character and position of the witnesses are matters of the first importance in such a case as this, and that the Court did not pay sufficient attention to them. Even if there were no disposition on the part of the other witnesses to make the most of what they had to say against the accused (which cannot, I think, he lightly assumed), there were two, and those the most important of all, whose evidence ought to have been received with suspicion, and to have been submitted to the strictest criticism. The witness Hadden had a distinct grievance against Commodore Heron. Not only had his charges against others been rejected, but he himself had been made the subject of punishment which must have been bitterly felt. He really occupied the position of prosecutor in a case in which he was personally interested, and his evidence ought to have been treated on this footing. I find no trace of this having been done. The evidence of the witness Fitzgerald deserved to be treated still more strictly. He obviously was the person against whom Hadden's charges were originally made. He was the officer on whom Commander Heron had relied. He was directly implicated in many of the charges made against Commander Heron in such a manner that it was his interest to shield 1414 himself by attacking his superior officer, and he gave his evidence under the influence of a caution (with which no fault can be found) not to criminate himself. It is too much to say that such a witness ought not to be believed, for that would amount to saying that he ought not to be called; but, in my opinion, he ought to have been examined most carefully. Leading questions ought to have been avoided, his evidence ought to have been severely tested in every possible way, and no credence ought to have been given to him except where corroborated by the clear evidence of other witnesses or the undoubted facts of the case. My conclusion, from a careful perusal of the notes of evidence, is that this was not done, and that the verdict of the Court must, as regards many of the charges, be the result of treating Fitzgerald as a witness worthy of independent credit. For these reasons I think that Commander Heron may fairly say that justice has not been done to him, and that the charges and evidence against him ought to be submitted to another tribunal.He thought it right to read the opinion of Mr. Kekewich to the House, and there were many Gentlemen of the long-robe present who would know what weight ought to be attached to those words. For his own part, he was thoroughly satisfied Mr. Kekewich was a person completely impartial in this matter, and who ought to be relied upon. Hero was a man without a flaw in his career, who had served his Queen and country faithfully for 32 years, turned into the streets—for what? For one offence—for £3 12.s. 6d. which he was supposed to have stolen. Was it possible to believe that this gallant officer had been guilty of such an act? Why, the thing was incredible. As a matter of fact, this officer was away on leave; he went to Paris on his marriage tour, and during his absence this man Fitzgerald was in charge of the ship. Many of the things complained of were done in his absence. Amongst the various charges against Commander Heron it was said that he had used the ship's paint for painting a conservatory. There was a bill produced for a small glass house which he had built to welcome his bride, and which cost £30. Now, was it to be supposed that after paying £30 for putting up a greenhouse he would not have paid £3 to have it painted? Although the contrary had been assumed, it was difficult to believe that he could have been capable of such incredible folly or such incredible wickedness. The court martial having sat, the officer was dismissed the Service, and his prospects were ruined. The next day to that on 1415 which the court martial decided, what happened? A court martial sat upon the witness Fitzgerald, and others whose names were mentioned, and Fitzgerald was proved to have been himself far more guilty of the things with which he had charged his Commander, and he was sent to penal servitude, or otherwise severely punished. Would any Gentleman in that House say that the evidence of that man was not tainted? Of course, it was the business of Fitzgerald and the others to defend themselves as best they could, and they defended themselves by perjuries. Notwithstanding that, there was to be no fresh trial and no revision of the action of the Admiralty. The fact was, the Admiralty wanted a scapegoat. This plan of putting Commanders on board ships without any intermediate officer had been proposed and rejected in his time, because it was seen that anyone with the rank of Commander could not properly maintain the dignity of his position without there being someone between himself and the men. The Clyde was not the only ship in which bad results had followed the adoption of this system. This officer had been made a scapegoat; the Admiralty was determined to punish someone, and Commander Heron had accordingly been turned out of the Service—in doing which he believed a gross injustice had been done, a gallant heart had been broken, and the country had lost a good officer. In conclusion, he would allude, without mentioning names, to a circumstance which his hon. and gallant Friend had mentioned in connection with another court martial. Two officers came down at night to a place where the captain's gig was lying; they used language too bad to be repeated; they gave a false address, but were found out, and they were broken, very properly, because a worse example could not have been set to the men. But they had friends in high places, and they were now serving in the Navy. Commander Heron had no such friends, and he was turned out of the Service. He would detain the House no longer than to express an earnest hope that a fresh inquiry might be held in the case of Commander Heron.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he desired to say a few words in support of the appeal just made by his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay). 1416 The first thing that struck him on reading the proceedings of the court martial was the very difficult position in which the Commander of the Clyde was placed by having no commissioned officers with him with whom he could consult. He was, consequently, in the power of the man Fitzgerald, who was practically first lieutenant of the ship. This case could not have occurred in the Army, because an officer in an analogous position to that of the Commander of the Clyde would certainly have had an acting adjutant to advise with; and, therefore, he said it was the duty of the Admiralty to put an end to the system of placing superior officers at the mercy of men of inferior rank. He repeated that Commander Heron was placed completely in the power of this dishonest scoundrel, Fitzgerald. All the correspondence passed through the hands of this man, and amongst it was a letter containing an accusation that the ship's stores had been made away with—a very improper practice, because after reading the charges it gave him not only an opportunity of devising an excuse for himself, but of concocting charges against his officer. Again, there seemed to be a system of making charges direct to the Duke of Edinburgh, without going through the hands of the commanding officer. That was a thing that ought not to be supported for one moment; and he maintained that, in justice to the officers of the Navy, it ought to be at once put an end to. With reference to the Court of Inquiry, he said that the conduct of Commander Best, who was a personal enemy of Commander Heron, in sitting as a member of the Court, was most disgraceful, and he would say also that the proceedings were not worth twopence in consequence. Commander Best had the strongest feeling against the Commander of the Clyde, and was not on speaking terms with him. The fact that 14 charges were formulated against that unfortunate officer was in itself sufficient to show the weakness of the case; because, if it were a strong case, one charge deliberately proved would have been conclusive. Some of these things were of a most trumpery description possible. There was a charge of fraud and ordering the destruction of the account-book of stores. The Admiralty knew they had very little chance of obtaining a conviction on 1417 these charges. If they had obtained such a conviction, no one would have said the sentence was too heavy; but they knew they had very little chance of making good these charges, consequently they added the charge relating to the old carpet. The Commander of the ship was supposed to go into Gunner Fitzgerald's cabin to look after this carpet; and if that charge failed, the prosecution had another relating to the stuffing of an old arm-chair. These charges entirely broke down, Commander Heron being honourably acquitted. The prosecution ought then to have said—"Having failed to prove these serious charges, we will at once withdraw all the minor charges, especially as we find that the whole of the evidence was tainted from beginning to end." He did not maintain that tainted evidence was worthless; but it was necessary that it should be corroborated. It was not corroborated; and, under the circumstances, he would appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) not to stick to the red-tape and stereotyped answer—"We must do this, and we cannot do that; we cannot upset the decision of the court martial." He would ask his hon. Friend to say to Lord Northbrook that he believed a primâ facic case had been made out for a new inquiry, and he hoped he would give an officer who had served with honour and distinction an opportunity of proving that he had not discredited an honourable and a noble Profession.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he desired to approach the subject with as little heat as possible after the somewhat excited speeches which had just been made; and he would ask the House to remember that it could not constitute itself a Court of Review to look into the evidence which had been brought before a formal court martial, when the witnesses came forward of themselves, and when their mode of giving evidence, as well as the matter of their evidence, was within the cognizance of the Court. Of course, it was open to any Member of the House to bring the subject of a sentence such as this under debate; and he must at once admit that he could not only perfectly understand, but could, to a large extent, sympathize with, the motives which had induced the hon. and gallant 1418 Member (Captain Maxwell-Heron) to bring this matter before the House, and he would add that the manner in which he had done so, and the tone of his speech, left nothing that could be desired. He (Mr. Campbell Bannerman) trusted he should not say a word in his observations calculated to hurt the feelings of either the hon. and gallant Member or his unfortunate brother who had fallen into these difficulties. He must distinctly state, at the outset, that he was not prepared to go into the merits of the case as disclosed in the evidence taken before the court martial—he was not going into the question whether this charge or that charge was proved, but would begin by saying that this House had not the material before it on which to form a judgment. The hon. and gallant Member had made a statement in defence of Commander Heron; and he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had been astonished, when the hon. and gallant Member declared that it was not his intention to divide the House, to hear loud cries from more parts of the House than one calling for a Division. Those who had joined in those exclamations had declared by that act that they were prepared to pronounce an opinion on this subject. ["No, no!"] Yes; that was his view—pre pared to pronounce an opinion having only heard one side of the case. Hon. Members would not hear the other side from him, because it was not in his power, nor was it his duty, to form the House into a Court of Review on the case. What he could do, however, and what he had much pleasure in doing, was to explain to the House the conduct of the Admiralty in the matter, and the way in which the proceedings connected with the case had been conducted. To begin with, a good deal had been said as to the position in which Commander Heron found himself on board the Clyde, having no lieutenant or other officer, but only a gunner, as his subordinate. No doubt, that was the position of Commander Heron; but it was a position common enough in the Navy. The hon. and gallant Gentleman near him had commanded a gunboat, and must be aware——
§ SIR JOHN HAYAs a Commander?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANHe did not say that. He said officers of the Navy had often found themselves in that position.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFYes, as lieutenants.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, continuing, said, that there were other ships like the Clyde in which the officers occupied the same position as Commander Heron had occupied. What happened first was this. The ship's corporal, Hadden, whose duty it was to see that no stores improperly left the ship, reported by letter to Commander Heron that certain irregularities were going on—that Government stores were being improperly sold from the ship. One of the principal charges against Commander Heron was that this man was treated harshly and in an oppressive manner, and that he (Commander Heron) had failed to make inquiries into the charges made on being directed to do so by the Admiralty. It was complained that Hadden had committed a great error by addressing a letter on the matter, not to his superior officer, but to the Admiral Superintending the. Reserves. There was certainly no Article in the Queen's Regulations which laid down that a seaman should do this; but there was an Article which laid down that an officer should do so; and he would ask the House whether they thought that a facility should be allowed to an officer and denied to a seaman? There was an Article in the Queen's Regulations—Article 634—which distinctly said that if an officer preferred a complaint, and his complaint was not attended to by the officer immediately in command over him, he was then to send the complaint to the officer next higher in command; and if the complaint was again neglected, he was ultimately to represent the case to the Secretary to the Admiralty. They were told it was a wrong thing for Hadden to take that course, he being only a seaman. So far from thinking that a seaman ought not to have the same privileges as an officer, the Admiralty were precisely of an opposite opinion; and it was their intention, and had been for some time, to amend the Regulations in that sense, and he believed the House would entirely agree with the propriety of that course. So much for Hadden.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANCertainly.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it was not identically the same, but a very similar one; it was substantially the same. If he were dealing with the whole case, he would deal with this point fully; but he was anxious not to go into details more than was necessary. If he must, however, give the history of Hadden's interference, it was simply this. Hadden, who, in his capacity of ship's corporal, was one of the ship's police, reported by letter to Commander Heron that Government stores were being improperly sold from the ship. Commander Heron told him he had given permission to Mr. Fitzgerald, the gunner, to sell some old yarns not sufficiently good for swabs, and appointed the following Friday—29th September—to hear Hadden and his witnesses. Hadden then went on shore, and obtained from two tradesmen in Aberdeen documentary evidence of certain Government rope and glass having been purchased by them from the Clyde. On the 27th September, Hadden was put under arrest by Mr. Fitzgerald. On the 29th September, he was brought before Commander Heron, who informed him that he had been put under arrest by his orders. On requesting that his civilian witnesses might be sent for, Commander Heron refused, and also refused Hadden's request that his case might be referred to the district captain. On the 30th of September, Hadden was sent for by Commander Heron, who told him that he had not proved his case, and that he should be disrated to able seaman, and have his badges taken away. Commander Heron, at the same time, directed him to be still kept as a prisoner. On this, Hadden wrote to His Royal Highness the Admiral Superintendent of Naval Reserves. Hadden was kept as a close prisoner from the 27th of September to the 3rd of October, and as a prisoner at large up to the 18th of October, when the Court of Inquiry assembled. On receipt of Hadden's letter, the Admiral Superintendent of Naval Reserves called on Commander Maxwell-Heron to report; and he answered that he had already investigated the case, and found Hadden's charges "utterly untrue," and that, moreover, he had been "insubordinate" when before him, and that he had failed. 1421 to produce any evidence to prove his statements. Commander Heron had, therefore, sentenced him to be disrated and to lose his badges—
As he had not brought forward the least proof in support of his accusation.Commander Heron further reported that Hadden hadHumbly apologized and retracted, acknowledging himself to be entirely in the wrong.It seemed an extraordinary thing that this subordinate officer should bring forward these serious charges against a superior officer, and then meekly withdraw them—so extraordinary, that the captain of the Coastguard district ship was ordered by the Admiralty to inquire into the whole thing, with the result that he found most favourably for Hadden, and commended his conduct. He found that not only were Hadden's statements entirely true, but that a great deal more than he had reported had been going on. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) appealed to the House whether Hadden's conduct had not been proper—whether it was not far from being a disorderly proceeding; whether this case did not show how useful it was that a man should have the power of complaining to a higher officer if his immediately superior officer took no notice of his complaint? The next charge which the hon. and gallant Member made was with reference to the Court of Inquiry. The hon. and gallant Member said that Captain Best was a personal enemy of Commander Heron. Of that the Board of Admiralty had no knowledge, and Captain Best, who was serving in the Coastguard at Aberdeen, was the most likely person to join with Captain Cator from Queensferry, the prosecuting officer, in making the inquiry. The Admiralty had no knowledge of any personal enmity such as was described; and the House, therefore, took the fact solely on the authority of the hon. and gallant Member, and on that evidence was ready to cheer the statement and condemn Captain Best for sitting on the Court of Inquiry. They had not yet heard Captain Best's reply—let them wait until they did before condemning that officer. Then the hon. and gallant Member complained that he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had refused to communicate the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry to his brother. 1422 But that was never done—he believed he might say absolutely never. A Court of Inquiry conducted a confidential investigation for the purpose of advising the Admiralty as to the case, and whether it was possible or desirable to bring an accused person before a court martial, and its proceedings could not with propriety be made public. Commander Heron was himself present during the whole of the proceedings in the Court of Inquiry—though, no doubt, it was alleged he was ill. Still, he was present all the time, and in the circumstantial letter he obtained a full account of all the circumstances which it was proposed to prove against him. Then the hon. and gallant Member said that little time was given to his brother for the preparation of his defence before the court martial was appointed. Well, it did not appear to him (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) to be a short time; but, at any rate, Commander Heron made no protest. He had the advantage of the advice of the eminent counsel already alluded to; but neither by himself nor by the advice of his counsel did he enter a protest. If he had said to the court martial that he had not had time to prepare his defence, no doubt the Court would have granted him time; but no such complaint was raised at all until it was raised in that House. Before the court martial, as he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had said, Commander Heron was assisted by a counsel well qualified to perform the duty. Several times this gentleman changed the course of the inquiry by objecting, for instance, to a certain line of examination; the objection was listened to, and that line of examination was immediately departed from. The Court showed throughout the proceedings the greatest deference to the counsel acting on behalf of Commander Heron. Then the hon. and gallant Member said the Court was a small one.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the Court was composed of five members. He did not know that there was any great advantage in having a large Court—for his own part, he would rather have a Court of good quality, such as was appointed, than a Court of great number. The prisoner could, under Regulation, have been tried— 1423 being below the rank of captain—by a Court composed of one captain, as President, two commanders, and two lieutenants; but, as a matter of fact, he was tried by one Flag officer, Rear Admiral Dowell, and four post captains—namely Captains Rowley, Colomb, Markham, and Fellowes. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would undertake to say that, so far from its being a court martial to be complained of on the score of weakness, it was about as strong a Court as could have been nominated. His right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir John Hay) had said there were two captains at Portsmouth who ought to have been present.
§ SIR JOHN HAYWho ought, by law, to have been present.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the right hon. and gallant Member knew perfectly well that it was a common thing in cases like this, where the court martial was fully constituted for all purposes, to give nominal leave to officers whom it was desirable, on account of the other duties they had to perform, to exempt from service on the Court.
§ SIR JOHN HAYI must repudiate all knowledge of such a thing.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThe right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in his observations on this subject, said he attributed no blame to the Admiralty; but the Admiralty would be very much to blame if, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests, they had acted against the law in keeping two captains from serving on the court martial.
§ SIR JOHN HAYI say distinctly that it was against the law not to put these captains on the Court.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANIt is not against the law to grant a captain leave of absence, and captains to whom leave of absence has been granted are, of course, exempted from serving on a court martial.
§ SIR JOHN HAYIf the hon. Member will turn to the Naval Discipline Act, he will find that officers up to nine in number are bound to be on the Court if they are within hearing of the gunfire of the Flag-ship.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANBut I say that is not the practice when you have a Court composed of five officers of such high standing as those I 1424 have enumerated. Having such a strong Court, it was not necessary to take away from their responsible duties the captains commanding the Excellent and the Vernon.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThe Admiralty found that they had at hand an Admiral and four captains. These two other post captains might, surely, be left to the discharge of their duties, instead of being taken away to take part in a court martial which was likely to last some days. That was the principle upon which the Court was appointed. There was no doubt that the necessity of the attendance of some officers on court martials had been dispensed with hitherto by giving nominal leave of absence; but it was the intention of the Government—and this was one of the points on which legislation during the present Session had been proposed—to enable this to be done in a more direct way. It was obviously a reasonable and proper arrangement to make. Then as to the evidence given before the court martial. They were told that a great part of the evidence given before the court martial was evidence of a tainted character; and he believed that the contention that was set up—not that night, certainly, but he had heard it set up—was that tainted evidence, such as that of Gunner Fitzgerald, ought to have been rejected. That contention had not been urged that night. Of course, the evidence of Fitzgerald was tainted, and was evidence which it was necessary to take with great caution, and which should not be acted upon unless corroborated. But the Court had acted in that spirit, and in every instance where Commander Heron was found guilty there was independent evidence besides that of Fitzgerald; and he had no doubt the Court had acted as anyone would, knowing all the circumstances, giving to the accused the advantage of the doubt which attached to the evidence of a man in Fitzgerald's position. Well, having gone into the case with the witnesses present, and with a much more full knowledge. of the circumstances than could be possessed by anyone here, the court martial had found their verdict. It was not conceivable that these five gal- 1425 lant officers could have had any desire to press hardly upon Commander Heron. It was inconceivable, knowing Commander Heron's previous character, which had been alluded to by that gentleman's right hon. and gallant Relative on the other side of the House (Sir John Hay), and knowing that his conviction would not redound to the credit of Her Majesty's Service, and seeing that they had every inducement to take a lenient view of the case, that the court martial would have been unduly severe on Commander Heron. Nay, he was not sure that it would not be right to say that the court martial did take a lenient view of the case, when they sentenced him to be dismissed from the Service, but did not dismiss him with disgrace. If he had been found guilty of fraud, if he had been found guilty of applying to his own use the proceeds of these stores, the right sentence would have been dismissal with disgrace, for, as an officer in Her Majesty's Service, he would have deserved it under such circumstances. Gunner Fitzgerald was sentenced to be dismissed with disgrace, because the graver charge was proved in his case. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; there was a distinction drawn in his case, because it was proved he had had a personal interest in the irregularities which occurred. That was proved beyond doubt; but there was a doubt so far as Commander Heron was concerned.
§ SIR JOHN HAYHe was acquitted of these two charges.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANWho?
§ SIR JOHN HAYCommander Heron.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANOf the charges of fraud?
§ SIR JOHN HAYYes.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANQuite so. There was a doubt in the matter, and the Court gave Commander Heron the benefit of the doubt. How, otherwise, was it that they did not dismiss him with disgrace as well as Fitzgerald?
§ SIR JOHN HAYHe was acquitted of these charges.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThere were 14 charges, and the following were amongst the most serious of the number, all of which the court martial found proved:—Neglecting to inquire into the fraudulent sales reported to him 1426 by the ship's corporal, Hadden; oppressive treatment and punishment of Had den; making false reports when called on for explanations——
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANcontinuing, said, that Commander Heron was also found guilty of authorizing the sale of Government stores, and not accounting for the proceeds; using large quantities of Government stores for the painting and fitting of his private residence and greenhouse—and this was the sort of charge which he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) maintained had a fraudulent flavour about it, to say the least.
§ SIR JOHN HAYOn whose evidence was this proved?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the following charges were also proved:—Paying extravagant prices for "firewood," so called, but really plank for the carpenter's use; neglect in signing false reports of condemnation of boats and furniture, which it was his duty to verify; knowingly signing a false report of condemnation of certain furniture, which was afterwards repaired by an upholsterer in Aberdeen, and taken to Commander Heron's private house; permitting dances on board the Clyde, to which admission was given to the public on payment. All these charges were found proved, and although they were not charges of direct fraud, they amounted to much more than "extreme negligence" and impropriety of conduct in the discharge of duties. If the Court had been satisfied that there was a fraudulent intent in the matter, Commander Heron would have been dismissed with disgrace.
§ SIR JOHN HAYRead the charges on which he was acquitted.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANNo; I am not going to read them.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must call the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) to the fact that it is impossible for a Member in possession of the House to discharge his duty to the House if interrupted in this way.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that all these charges to which he had referred were found proved, and, to his mind, they amounted to much more than negligence. Then, the right 1427 hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Hay) had introduced another matter altogether; but before he dealt with that he would refer to the question as to what the Admiralty were to do after the court martial had given its sentence. The practice at the Admiralty had been, so far as he could learn, for many years back, that the proceedings of no court martial were submitted to the Admiralty Counsel unless a legal doubt or difficulty existed in the matter. It was never submitted with regard to the evidence on the merits of the case. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that when he was at the Admiralty this was done in a certain way, which he described. Well, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was at the Admiralty a great many years ago, and he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) could not find his impression corroborated by those now at the Admiralty, and who were then in Office. But it was easily conceivable that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who seemed to have an acute recollection of these matters, should remember some cases which had been revised by, or submitted to, the Counsel to the Admiralty. The House must know that the Admiralty Counsel was not like the Judge Advocate General, to whom all general and district courts martial in the Army were referred. The Admiralty Counsel received a small retaining fee, and was paid for the work which was given him to do.
§ SIR JOHN HAYHow much is he paid?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he thought the sum was £100 a-year. It was practically a nominal payment, special payment being made for the work performed. He was not like the Judge Advocate General, to whom each court martial was submitted as a matter of course, and who then submitted it to the Queen. There was no such Officer as the Judge Advocate General at the Admiralty, and never had been; and so far from refusing to submit this case to the Counsel of the Admiralty, so far from departing from the general practice, it would have been quite contrary to the ordinary practice if it had been submitted, unless there had been some point of law to submit. Where was the point of law in this case? All the questions which had been put before the House that night had been 1428 questions as to the nature of the case and as to the value of the evidence, and these were matters which a court martial was perfectly capable of trying. He might add that the sentence pronounced was, of course, submitted to his Colleagues at the Admiralty—to Sir Cooper Key, Lord John Hay, Sir Frederick Richards, and Lord Northbrook—who made themselves acquainted with the evidence, and they unanimously concurred in the sentence. He would ask the House whether they thought the five officers of distinction and position whose names, he ventured to say, would carry as great weight in the Navy as any other five names that could be chosen, who composed the court martial—namely, Admiral Dowell, and Captains Fellowes, Rowley, Mark-ham, and Colomb—they, in the first place, and his naval Colleagues in the second place—would have come to the melancholy conclusion at which they had arrived unless they had felt themselves obliged to do so?
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERThey were not unanimous.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he knew the House was asked, on the ex parte statement of his hon. and gallant Friend, and on the advice of the two hon. and gallant Members opposite, to express an opinion contrary to that formed by the capable and experienced officers who had been named.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERThe Court was not unanimous.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANHow does the hon. and gallant Member know that? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) said he had been told it was not.
§ SIR JOHN HAYI said it was matter of rumour.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANHe said he was told. Who told him? Were they to go on mere rumour in matters of this kind? Every man who sat on a naval court martial knew that he was bound under oath not to disclose how the verdict was brought about. How did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who said he knew that the Court was not unanimous, come by that knowledge?
§ SIR JOHN HAYI never said I knew it.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERThe right hon. and gallant Gentleman never said 1429 he knew it. These things always get about.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANHe used it as an argument—he said there were only three to two in favour of the verdict; that he had been told so.
§ SIR JOHN HAYI really must correct the hon. Gentleman. I made use of the expression—"It might have been three to two."
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI beg the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon. What he said was—"I am told there were three to two."
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANQuite so; the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he was told that. He called on the House to observe that every officer in a court martial was bound not to disclose how the verdict was arrived at; therefore, he would call on them to put away from their minds any consideration of that kind. He, himself, did not know how the verdict was arrived at—no one ought to know; and he maintained it was a matter which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should not have mentioned to the House if it was a mere rumour. If he knew it to be true, he ought not to have known it; if he did not know it to be true, he ought not to have stated it. Although a mere rumour, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had used it to prejudice the opinion of the House in a certain direction. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had further alluded to another court martial which had recently taken place, a court martial held on two young sub-lieutenants. That case, he believed, was this. At night, when a captain was going on board his ship, those two young officers were in another boat at the landing-place; some chaff had taken place between their waterman and the crew, and when the captain appeared he was not recognized, and some most disrespectful words were applied to him. Afterwards, also, those young officers behaved very badly, one of them exclaiming that he thanked God that he was not in the Navy, and then representing themselves as belonging to a ship to which they did not belong. That was the foolish and most culpable and blameworthy lark that was indulged in, and it was most improper and prejudicial to discipline. They were 1430 tried by court martial, and were sentenced to be dismissed the Service, and why? Because, under the law as it now stood, if any officer was proved to have been guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer he must be dismissed the Service, and the Court could give no intermediate or milder sentence—it must either acquit or dismiss from the Service. But in some cases, under such circumstances, the Admiralty used its discretion to mitigate the sentence; and, accordingly, they did mitigate the sentence upon these young officers. One of them, who had been in trouble before, lost a year and a-half's seniority, and the other lost one year's seniority; and he ventured to think that was the proper course. It was a severe and an adequate sentence; but what did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) say? He hinted—though he did not say so in so many words—that the sentence on one of the officers was mitigated because his brother was an Equerry to the Prince of Wales. Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, having made that insinuation, get up and say that he believed that Lord Northbrook and his Colleagues mitigated the sentence upon this young officer because his brother was an Equerry to the Prince of Wales? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had represented that because Commander Heron had no friends he was hardly treated, and that those who had powerful friends were let off. He hoped he had shown that there was no foundation for such an unworthy insinuation. As to Commander Heron—for whom he could only express the sincerest sympathy and regret at his unfortunate position—when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of his having no friends, was it not an advantage to have a brother and a cousin in the House of Commons? If he had not had a brother and a cousin in the House of Commons, his case would probably not have been brought before the House. He thought the House ought to be all the more careful not to constitute themselves a Court of Appeal, and not to interfere in such a case as this, because it might be said that there was no chance for others who were not lucky enough to have a brother so devoted as the hon. and gallant Member who had brought this matter forward, and a near 1431 relative so ready as the right hon. and gallant Admiral to take it up. He had now said what he thought it right to say without going into the merits of the case, because it would be most distasteful and undesirable to do so; and he trusted he had shown that the Admiralty had displayed no disposition to treat this unfortunate officer with injustice.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he had considered it his duty, for certain reasons which he would not trouble the House with, to examine into the facts of this case, and he had consulted a well-known Member of that House as to the facts relating to this particular court martial. Into those facts which bore on the legal aspects of the case he would not pretend to enter; but he thought he was right in saying that the gallant officer whose conduct was impugned had just about the time when this matter was brought before the court martial entered into the solemn engagement of matrimony, and at that time he committed himself to certain orders which were objectionable and, no doubt, unwise with regard to the furnishing of his house; and he was told, on the best authority, that the individual who was ultimately found to have been irregular in his balances as to stores, painted the stairs of this officer's house with green, the floor with white, the top floor with red, and other parts of the house with blue. This officer might have been loose in dealing with what was national property to the extent of £10 or £12; but that was not a thing that could have been expected to result in depriving one who had served in Her Majesty's Navy for 30 years with the greatest possible zeal and diligence of his position in the Navy, and his dismissal from the Service. No sensible person would divide the House, or ask the House to determine whether Commander Heron was a culprit in this matter or not; but he thought it was very undesirable that there should have been anything like this severe judgment upon what seemed to have been but a paltry affair. What really happened was, that every Government desired to find a victim. If they could find anybody going wrong, and their view could be maintained by a court martial, of course both sides desired to effect that result. On the whole, he could not help thinking that, looking at the facts of the case, an un- 1432 fortunate time had been taken by the Government in this matter; and if a Division was taken, he hoped they would consider the very great services Commander Heron had rendered in the past, and would come to the conclusion that anything more paltry or more unreal than the grounds upon which this sentence had been passed could not be conceived, and that the sentence would be revised by the Admiralty.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, he understood that the sole object of this discussion was to obtain some further inquiry into this matter; and he agreed with the observation of the Secretary to the Admiralty, that this House ought not to be made a Court of Appeal from any court martial in the Army or the Navy, or any Court sitting in Westminster Hall. That, however, was not what was asked. The House was not asked to sit as a Court of Appeal upon this question, and on that ground the Secretary to the Admiralty had declined to go into the facts of the case, or to discuss its merits. He, himself, had always been amazed at the fact that in a civilized country like this such a system of procedure could prevail as that existing in the Army and Navy in court martials. He remembered being particularly struck by one which would be fresh in the memory of several hon. Members, in which the Home Secretary was a distinguished Counsel—namely, the Crawley Court Martial at Aldershot. If any tribunal could render it difficult to arrive at the truth it would be a court martial as now conducted. Imagine anyone engaged in cross-examining a witness having to write down his questions on a piece of paper to be handed to the Judge for him to put them to the witness. Anything more ridiculous than such a system as that for eliciting the truth it was impossible to conceive; and he made this remark because it was extremely probable that, in a case where there was evidence, as the Secretary to the Admiralty had admitted in this case, which was not worthy of credit, such evidence had not been properly sifted by such a process. All that the House was asked to do was to express an opinion, upon the facts as presented to the House, whether there were sufficient grounds for further inquiry Speaking only from what had been stated in the House, he understood that several charges were made against 1433 this gallant officer, and upon the most serious of them he had been acquitted. The tribunal had decided upon comparatively trivial charges, and upon them his prospects of a long and prosperous career were ruined. Considering the whole matter, be did think that sufficient grounds had been shown to justify the House in recommending the Government to give this case further inquiry. It was true that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) had said he had reason to believe that the judgment of the court martial was not unanimous, although he could not know that as a fact; if that was so, that rendered the decision of this court martial less satisfactory than it would otherwise have been. He did not impugn the decision of that tribunal; but he should certainly support the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite if he went to a Division.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he thought the House must have heard some of the remarks of the Secretary to the Admiralty with considerable surprise, and must have regretted that he had not come to a decision which would have been more agreeable to the sense of the House. He had spoken of three changes which would have to be made on account of this court martial.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that was not so. He had stated that the changes were in contemplation before the court martial took place.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he did not think any court martial had ever given a decision more cruelly unjust in its severity than this. It was purely upon trivial charges; and Commander Heron, whom he did not know, would never have been tried upon them by the Horse Guards or the Admiralty. He was entirely acquitted of the more serious of the charges; and when the hon. Member spoke of the leniency of the Court, he quite forgot that Commander Heron was entirely acquitted of fraudulent or dishonourable charges. With regard to the ship's corporal having forwarded his letter direct to the Duke of Edinburgh, the Secretary to the Admiralty was wrong in saying that the corporal demanded that the Commander should forward the letter to the Duke of Edinburgh, and said that if the Commander did not do so he should forward it himself. The corporal did not do that, but 1434 forwarded it to the Admiral—the Duke of Edinburgh—against every regulation known in such a case. As the hon. Gentleman had said, the sense of the House had been fully shown by the cheer which was given when his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) spoke of a revision of the sentence by the Admiralty. The House itself was utterly unfit to arrive at a judicial decision upon the case, and if the matter were taken to a Division he should walk out of the House, because he felt that it would be improper to give a decision in a case of this kind upon an ex parte statement. The sentiments of the House had, however, been fully expressed by its cheers, and it was quite evident that there was a general feeling that the case ought to be revised. They were entitled to ask for a revision and reconsideration. His right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) had been taken to task by the Secretary to the Admiralty because he had mentioned the case of two other officers in which, only the other day, the sentence of a court martial had been revised. That case was only brought forward by his right hon. and gallant Friend to show that the Admiralty did possess the power of revising the sentence of a court martial, and that in a case of necessity they were not backward in exercising it. But in the case of the two young officers in question, the loss to the Service would not have been very great, seeing that they had only just entered the Navy; whereas, in the case of Commander Heron, they had an officer who had served with credit and distinction for 32 years, whose loss was a real loss to the Service, and whose prospects had been ruined for life. He was told that the decision of the Court itself was only arrived at by three against two. He knew that officers sitting upon a court martial took an oath not to divulge the secrets of the Court; but, nevertheless, the fact of the want of unanimity had leaked out. Then, if the decision was wrong, and the Court had not been unanimous in finding it, why hesitate about granting a revision? How did the Secretary to the Admiralty know that the whole of the members of the Court were of one mind?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had never stated that they were. He had distinctly said that he knew nothing about it.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the whole of the five officers who composed the Court were unanimous; whereas two of them dissented from the finding of the other three. Three were for the conviction and sentence and two against, and that fact afforded another strong reason why the decision of the Court should be revised by the Admiralty, and why the House, at that late period of the Session, should not be called upon to consider and pronounce a judgment upon the case. The evidence was most peculiar and most pointed. The man upon whose evidence Commander Heron was found guilty was tainted, and the witness himself was subsequently found guilty by a court martial and dismissed the Service with disgrace. That fact alone ought to have aroused the suspicion of the Admiralty; and although the Secretary to the Admiralty told the House that the five officers who sat upon the court martial did get evidence to corroborate the testimony of Gunner Fitzgerald, anyone who had read that evidence through would see that the man was not properly corroborated in any one of the charges except by men equally tainted with himself, and men who were also under arrest. He thought that what the hon. Member asked for was only a reasonable thing. At the same time, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not go to a Division, and that the debate would be allowed to cease. He trusted yet to have an assurance from some Member of the Government that the Admiralty would reconsider the case, and extend to an old, an honourable, and a gallant officer the same clemency which had been extended to the two young officers whose case had been mentioned.
§ MR. WILLIS(who rose amid loud calls for a Division) said, he would not detain the House for more than a few minutes; but he thought that there was an act of justice which the Admiralty ought to do in the case. It was their duty to lay all the facts of the case before the Counsel of the Admiralty. The question raised in the case was entirely one of law, as far as he was able to understand it—namely—and he was speaking in the hearing of the Law Officers of the Crown—whether there had been such evidence as justified the Court in coming to a conclusion adverse to Com- 1436 mander Heron? The evidence of Fitzgerald was practically the evidence of an accomplice, and it was laid down as a rule of law, invariably acted upon by Her Majesty's Judges, never to leave a case to a jury on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. The question to which the Law Officers of the Government and the Counsel of the Admiralty ought to address themselves was whether, on a careful examination of the evidence, there was such corroboration as justified the Court in arriving at the conclusion that the charges preferred against Commander Heron were proved? He (Mr. Willis) had listened carefully to the statements which had been made in regard to the facts of the case, and also to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman who represented the Admiralty, and all he could say was that there were the gravest reasons for being dissatisfied with the conclusions to which the Court had arrived. If anyone on the Treasury Bench would assure the House that the facts of the case would be laid before the Counsel of the Admiralty, in order to see whether the evidence was such as to justify the five naval officers who composed the court martial in coming to the conclusion that Commander Heron was guilty of the charge made against him, he (Mr. Willis), and he believed the House, would be satisfied with that assurance. But unless that course was taken there would be great dissatisfaction, because, as far as his opinion went, the evidence submitted to the five naval officers was anything but conclusive. If, however, on considering the whole of the facts, the Counsel of the Admiralty should be of opinion that the evidence was such as to justify the court martial in reasonably coming to the conclusion that Commander Heron was guilty, he (Mr. Willis) should then be content with the decision; but unless such an opinion was expressed by the Counsel of the Admiralty, he should continue to entertain the feeling that there were grave reasons for doubting the fairness and justice of the conviction and sentence. He was sorry to have been compelled to obtrude upon the House at so late an hour; but, in his judgment, the matter was one of much greater importance than many questions upon the discussion of which the House spent considerable time; and he would rather be guilty of participating in the 1437 warmth which had been manifested that evening in endeavouring to protect the character of a man who had rendered long and good service to the country than in displaying the indifference which had been exhibited by the Admiralty in the course of the debate.
§ MR. DALYsaid, he had listened attentively, and with much interest, to the history of this case, and he thought there was a good deal in the point which had been raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay), that the court martial which sat for the purpose of trying Commander Heron was not properly constituted. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was naturally possessed of considerable experience in connection with naval matters, laid it down as a dictum that any naval officer capable of sitting upon a court martial who was within sound of the gun which summoned the Court, or within sight of the flag, was bound to serve. If that were so, there were two naval officers who ought to have served upon the Court, but who, nevertheless, did not serve, and, consequently, the Court was not properly constituted. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty said that if Commander Heron had not been fortunate enough to have a brother in the House of Commons willing and able to take up his case the present debate would never have been introduced. That had nothing to do with the matter, which was simply one of justice to an old and gallant officer. He (Mr. Daly) was neither a brother, nor a sister, nor a cousin, nor an aunt of Commander Heron; but he knew that he had listened to the whole of the narrative of the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Maxwell-Heron) with the greatest possible interest; and he felt, from the facts which had been placed before him, that the question was essentially one which should go through the formula pointed out by the right hon. and gallant Member for Wigtown (Sir John Hay)—namely, that, taking into consideration the nature of the evidence and the gravity of the charges with which this gallant officer of 32 years' service had been found guilty, it was essentially a case which ought to be laid before the Counsel of the Admiralty. He had heard with great regret one of the reasons adduced by the Secretary to the Admiralty as a reason why that 1438 course should not be observed—namely, that the Counsel of the Admiralty had only a very small annual retainer—some £120 a-year, he believed. He was satisfied that in so grave a case as this, neither the House nor the country would grudge whatever amount of fees Counsel might require for going carefully through the whole of the evidence; because, although, no doubt, the issue to the Admiralty was a very small one, to this gallant officer, who had served his country creditably, faithfully, and with distinction for 32 years, who had received four medals and clasps, it simply meant a blasted reputation and ruin for life. It was the duty of the Government, therefore, to lose no opportunity of reconsidering the evidence by which Commander Heron had been convicted, and of ascertaining whether the court martial by which he was tried was justified in finding him guilty of the charges brought against him.
§ MR. HENEAGEsaid, he was anxious that the debate should not be unnecessary prolonged; but he did appeal to the Prime Minister to respond to the wish which had been almost unanimously expressed on both sides of the House, by intimating that the evidence would be laid before the Legal Authorities of the Board of Admiralty for reconsideration. He made this appeal to his right hon. Friend on two grounds—first, that this unfortunate officer, Commander Heron, was not permitted to live on board of the Clyde, but was compelled to reside on shore, and was therefore bound to place a considerable amount of confidence in the second officer, Gunner Fitzgerald; and, secondly, that when these charges were preferred by the ship's corporal, there was every inducement on the part of Gunner Fitzgerald to endeavour to screen himself by throwing the blame upon Commander Heron. He sincerely hoped that the Government would give a promise that the matter should be referred to the Counsel of the Admiralty, and that the House might then proceed to the consideration of some other Business.
MR. GLADSTONEI am bound to admit that I labour under the disadvantage of not having heard the whole of the debate, and the few remarks which I have to make are founded upon that part of it which I have heard. There is, however, one ground which 1439 has been taken by more than one hon. Member, and that is that the charges were only trivial. Now, I think we must endeavour to look at all the matters involved in the case in as dry and as strict a light as possible. The principal ground for asking the Government to order a reconsideration, or, at any rate, one of the principal grounds, is that the charges on which this officer has been convicted were charges that were not of a serious character. That appears to me to be altogether an error. I certainly cannot agree that the charges are not serious. I think, on the contrary, that if I were to read a few of the charges I could show that that is not the ground on which we should be asked to interfere with the finding of the court martial, and I did not understand my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis) to put the case on that ground. It will hardly, I think, be disputed that such charges as these are not most grave and serious:—Making false reports; improperly authorizing the sale of the ship's stores, and not accounting for the proceeds; using a large quantity of Government stores for painting and fitting up a private residence and garden-house; condemning certain furniture which was afterwards repaired by an upholsterer at Aberdeen and taken to a private house; and knowingly signing false reports. No one can say that charges of that kind are not very serious charges indeed. But this is, no doubt, a peculiar case, and I hope the House will approach the consideration of it with an adequate impression of the extreme gravity of the subject-matter. The rights of an individual are most sacred. The feelings of the House are naturally and laudably enlisted with a great amount of sensitiveness and a great deal of jealousy on behalf of those rights. It is intolerable to have to remind anyone that justice should be done; and most of all is it intolerable in a case where the individual concerned is one who for many years has served his country. On the other hand, it would be impossible, even for the sake of the discipline of the Services of the country, to pass over grave charges of this nature if clearly proved. The matter is, therefore, one of the gravest consequence, and the House should weigh well in all cases of this kind the grounds upon which a judicial 1440 decision has been arrived at, and should avoid dealing conclusively with it until the whole subject has been satisfactorily considered. I was sorry to hear the procedure of a court martial spoken of, with a view of influencing the decision of the House in a case of this kind, as if it was throughout very defective. It may be so; I do not pretend to be a judge; but the defectiveness of that mode of procedure, surely, is a matter which ought to form the subject of a Motion for amending it, and not a matter for discussion on an occasion like this. I have such a deep conviction of the nice sense of honour, and the peculiar sensitiveness felt by the members of Courts of this description, that I think we should forbear from extending the disadvantages under which courts martial are held by declaring that they are defective in their constitution, differing, as they naturally do, from the circumstances under which the ordinary tribunals of the land are held. I come now to the main point before the House. Serious charges against the Commander of the Clyde were found by a court martial to be proved; but a consideration has been urged which appears to me to have great weight, and after the manner in which it has been pressed upon the House, it is not possible for us to pass it by without giving to it that attention which it deserves. That point is that the charges were sustained mainly by the evidence of a tainted witness, whose character was such that it was necessary subsequently to try the witness himself, with the result of securing his conviction and dismissal from the Service. It is asserted that the Admiralty acted upon the conviction obtained upon the evidence of this tainted character without requiring such corroboration as would have been necessary in an ordinary trial where the chief evidence was that of an informer of the worst character. It is said that in a parallel case in an ordinary trial the Court would have required a certain amount of corroboration of the evidence of the principal witness. It is impossible for the House to judge upon what evidence the Court came to its conclusion; but, no doubt, the Court thought there was sufficient corroboration, and accepted the evidence of the principal witness, although he may have been a man of tainted character, as good evidence. At the same time, the question 1441 is so difficult to decide, and the points of law involved so extremely nice, that it is doubtful whether professional assistance ought not to be called in. Under these circumstances, we think—and I believe my noble Friend (the Earl of Northbrook) will join us in doing what we think right—that some further satisfaction should be given. It is evident that a question of this kind ought not to be touched or decided except by the highest and best authorities. The learned counsel to the Admiralty is, I understand, not at his post, and will not be there for a considerable number of weeks; but my hon. and learned Friends the Attorney General and Solicitor General have had the advantage of hearing this debate, and we shall engage, on the part of the Admiralty, that their assistance shall he called in for the purpose of aiding the judgment of the First Lord, because, after all, it is with the Admiralty that the responsibility must lie. I trust, therefore, the House will be disposed to think that in making this proposal we have gone as far as it is possible for us to go in the direction indicated by hon. Members.
SIR. R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had listened to the words which had fallen from the Prime Minister with great satisfaction. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General had had an opportunity of hearing the debate from beginning to end; and his opinion was that, in the absence of the learned counsel to the Admiralty, no bettor plan could be devised than that of leaving the question in the hands of the Law Officers of the Crown. But, although he considered the suggestion of the Prime Minister satisfactory in the present instance, he would ask whether he was to understand that the House of Commons was not a Court of Appeal in such Cases?
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, with the permission of the House, he would add a few words to what had been said in the course of the debate He might say of the statement of the Prime Minister that it was listened to with a sense of very great relief by everyone in the House; and he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman who brought the case forward that, so far as be could gather from his hon. Friends, had the question gone to a Division he would have had their united support. Although 1442 the case was one in which his feelings were deeply aroused, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had given an example of moderation which others would do well to imitate; and he would add that the demeanour of the House in listening to his remarks. and the way in which they were received, contrasted very favourably with the manner in which grievances on other occasions were listened to and discussed. One of the points most strongly urged by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and by those who followed him, was the great danger of trusting to the tainted evidence of informers; and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) hoped that the remarks which had been made on that subject in all parts of the House would sink deeply into the minds of hon. Members. The hon. and gallant Gentleman behind him (Colonel Alexander) had made some most proper observations upon this case; he had insisted that the House of Commons had a perfect right to revise and discuss such cases. He was very glad to see a Member of the Conservative Party so anxious to preserve to the House its character as a Court of Revision, which it could not be denied was one of its privileges; and, finally, he would refer to the statement of the Prime Minister that the House was properly jealous of injury to individuals. But there had been other cases of injuries to individuals brought before the House which, equally with the present, demanded reconsideration; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would show himself correspondingly sensitive with regard to them.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer) had made some strictures on courts martial in general, and had referred to his (Sir William Harcourt's) experience of those tribunals. He did think it right to remain silent after the depreciatory and condemnatory remarks which his hon. and learned Friend had made, because it so happened that he had appeared before both military and naval courts martial in very important cases; and, although it was perfectly true that the procedure differed very considerably from that with which hon. Gentlemen were familiar in ordinary Courts of Law, he felt it would be a great evil if the impression went abroad that the tribunals in question did not administer 1443 real and substantial justice. His experience was that there were no tribunals more careful in the administration of justice than courts martial, or more willing and able to administer it.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, he hoped the House would not do him the injustice to suppose he had intended to reflect upon the officers who constituted these tribunals, who, he was sure, were actuated by a sincere intention to administer justice, and did administer it. His observations applied to procedure, which he said was not satisfactory; because witnesses whose evidence was tainted, as in the present instance, were not adequately cross-examined.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, as he represented the borough in which the court martial was held, and in which it caused a great deal of excitement, he must make an appeal to the Prime Minister. While he was delighted with the result of the discussion of that evening, and the fact that Commander Heron would have a chance of getting his case revised, he asked that when the revision took place the Law Officers of the Crown would also look into the ease of Fitzgerald, whose friends had appealed to him alleging that he had not been properly tried, and that his dismissal in a degrading manner from the Service was unfair. He expressed no opinion upon that; but he could not but think that Fitzgerald was as much entitled to consideration as Commander Heron, because he was tried by the same court martial. Therefore, he trusted that the case might be sifted by the Law Officers of the Crown, and the same justice accorded to him as to Commander Heron.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Remaining Resolution agreed to.