QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 2 March 1891)

§ LORD SUDELEY
, in rising— To ask Her Majesty's Government how it is that since the 9th February, when they stated, 'that the return ordered to be printed on the 5th August on Admiral Colomb's flashing signals, had been delayed owing to a letter of Admiral Colomb's not having been received before the 12th October, but was in the hands of the printers and would at once be distributed,' other letters have been written included in the return, one by the Treasury on the 13th February and one by the Admiralty on the 21st February, which traverse the whole question, and necessarily caused further delay of three weeks in the issue of the papers, said: My Lords, since I gave notice of this question I find that the Return to which it relates has been distributed; it will, therefore, be necessary for me to somewhat alter the question, and I would ask how it is that certain letters have been included in this Return not withstanding the answer I received on the 9th February? This question, although it may seem a somewhat simple one, is, I apprehend, a serious matter, because it involves to a great extent the privileges of your Lordships' House. You will remember that on the 5th August last a Return was moved for and at the time, owing to certain causes to be alluded to, a letter which was expected from Admiral Colomb was asked to be included in the Return. Perhaps I may explain that the reason of that was simply this: that although the discussion on the question took place in May it was the 26th June before Lord Elphinstone stated in this House that the Admiralty proposed to offer Admiral Colomb £2,000. Unfortunately, there was a delay at the Admiralty, and that offer was not made until the 29th July. It was, therefore, mutually agreed between us that the Return moved for on the 5th August should include that letter. When the House met at the beginning of this Session, I made particular inquiries, and I was assured it would be issued at once. On the 9th February I asked the noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone, as representative of the Admiralty, whether he could tell me how soon it would be issued. He then informed me there had been some little difficulty owing to Admiral 1921 Colomb's letter not having been received at the Admiralty until the 12th October (but as of course there had been four months' interval that was no excuse), and he went on to say that the Papers should be issued forthwith. Now, a very serious thing has happened. I found out about a fortnight afterwards that this statement of my noble Friend was hardly the case. I do not wish to use unpleasant language, and I am sure my noble Friend had not the slightest idea that when he gave your Lordships that reason for the delay in making this Return, it was a statement which could hardly be said to be a true statement. What actually happened was this: I found that subsequent to that answer—four days afterwards—a letter was written by the Treasury traversing the whole question, and putting an entirely new aspect upon the whole matter, and not only was that done, but a further letter was written on the 21st February—afort-night afterwards—from the Admiralty. Therefore the real answer would have been that the Return was being kept back in order that certain further letters should be delivered, and that, therefore, there would be further delay. That answer of Lord Ephinstone's was given me three weeks ago, and the Return has only been issued today. But, my Lords, is there not here a question of the privileges of your Lordships' House? I understand that when a Return is moved for in this House, in order to be printed, it is stated definitely up to what date those letters or those papers should go. It is not only unusual and unprecedented, but it is absolutely wrong, that other letters of a far later date should be included. Many of your Lordships have been in this House a great deal longer than I have. So far as I remember, the proceedings in the other House, it certainly would never have been allowed—that seven months should have been permitted to elapse before such a simple Return as this should have been distributed to the House. This question of privilege is, I think, a somewhat serious matter, because it is quite evident that, however simple this particular case may be, if your Lordships pass it over on this occasion, how are you to be certain that other Returns which your Lordships may order to be printed will not be kept back for further impotant 1922 terms to be added to it? But, apart from the question of privilege, there is a personal aspect of the matter as regards myself which I should like to mention. When I moved for this Return I did so at the instigation of several Gentlemen in the other House, who explained that they were anxious to bring forward the question respecting the treatment which Admiral Colomb has received, and that if I would move for this Return that Motion in the other House should be made directly the House met this Session. When the House met there was no Return. My noble Friend Lord Elphinstone gave a certain answer which turned out to be most erroneous, and here we are, now close to Easter, and the Return is only just issued; so that practically the whole matter is put off until Easter. I would also say this—that I think the course taken by the Admiralty is somewhat uncourteous. It is now nearly two years since a Deputation of Members of this and the other House waited upon Lord George Hamilton. We went thoroughly into the question, and we were told to move, in July, 1889, that the Admiralty would at once deal with this question, which, I may say, had been delayed over and over again. But last Session, in May, 1890, finding that nothing had been done, the question was brought forward in your Lordships' House. His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and every one of the Admirals who held commands in the Fleet, or nearly all, stated their view very strongly that it was a matter which ought at once to be dealt with, and that practically it was unfair to the Navy not to bring the matter to a settlement. Since that date the Treasury have offered the paltry sum of £2,000. I will not go now into the merits of the questioon, but what I wish to point out to your Lordships is this: that although I have endeavoured to meet the Admiralty in every possible way, I have been met by every possible effort to avoid the question being thoroughly dealt with. The whole matter has been treated in so paltry a manner, although it is one which in the interests of the Navy ought to have been dealt with in a large way, that it is very unfortunate it has not been so dealt with. There has been delay after delay, and now the question is being 1923 dealt with in a manner which is utterly without precedent. I am sorry the noble Lord (Lord Elphinstone) is unable to be in the House to-night, but as he has informed me that another noble Lord will answer the question, he will not think it discourteous of me that I have not further postponed it.

THE EARL OF LIMERICK
My Lords, I regret very much that the noble Lord (Lord Elphinstone) who I had hoped until this morning would be able to be present to-night to answer the question of the noble Lord, has been unable to leave his house, having been unwell for several days. I think, under the circumstances, that possibly the noble Lord, knowing that anybody else to whom the question might be put must be very imperfectly aware of the facts, would have done better in putting it not to have brought a charge of incorrectness as he has done against Lord Elphinstone, in his absence, and also to have made a rather vehement attack upon the Admiralty. All I am able to say now, not anticipating from the notice of the noble Lord's question that he intended to go into this matter, is that on the 1st December Admiral Colomb addressed a letter to the Admiralty to be forwarded to the Treasury. That letter was forwarded on the 5th December. On the 14th February the Treasury's reply was received, and forwarded to Admiral Colomb, that the Papers were complete, and were on the point of being circulated. There is no doubt that those letters have been included, in addition, in the Return which is now on your Lordships' Table. The noble Lord says it was a great irregularity to present those letters in addition to those which were moved for on the 1st July; but he will remember that he himself expressed a hope that the Return would, if necessary, be delayed for the purpose of including Admiral Colomb's reply. Well, Admiral Colomb's reply to the letter of the 29th July was not written until the 11th October last. The noble Lord complains of delay on the part of the Admiralty, but it appears to me there was a very considerable delay on Admiral Colomb's own part in not answering the letter of the 29th July until the 11th October; and, therefore, I do not think it can be said that all the delay has been on one side. All 1924 that I can say is that the Papers are now before your Lordships' House, and they include all the correspondence which has taken place up to the present date. It was no doubt, I imagine, considered that as the noble Lord had in one instance asked that the Return should be delayed for the purpose of including a letter of Admiral Colomb's, which was not received for more than two months after the date of the letter to which it was an answer, it would be desirable to make some further delay in order that the Return should be as complete as possible. I regret that it should have fallen to me, in the place of my noble Friend, to answer this question. I had not anticipated the statement which the noble Lord was going to make, and I have not been prepared with any official information regarding it. I am only sorry he has not been answered, on account of ill-health, by my noble Friend himself, who I am quite sure will, at the earliest opportunity, answer the statement the noble Lord has made—that on the 9th February he made a statement to this House which was incorrect.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
My Lords, I will say nothing as to Lord Elphinstone, except that I am very sorry he has not been able to be present; but with regard to the Return itself, it is certainly an inconvenient practice that after a Return has been moved for, its presentation to the House should not have been made for some months in order that further letters should be presented with it. It seems to me that it would have been far better if the Return had been presented at an earlier period and then the two other letters could have been presented afterwards whenever it was thought desirable. I do not in the least bring any accusation against the Admiralty in a matter which I am not acquainted with, but I thought it right to say this in reference to the statement that a Return has been delayed for the purpose of introducing a further correspondence, and I think that is not a desirable course.

§ LORD SUDELEY
I hope your Lordships will allow me to explain one matter. The noble Lord stated just now inadvertently, no doubt, that I have been discourteous to Lord Elphinstone and 1925 himself in not giving notice of the statement I have made, and in not postponing the question; but I think he will not say so when I remind him of the facts. I put down this question last Friday, but I put it off owing to the fact that Lord Elphinstone was ill. I went to see Lord Elphinstone yesterday, and told him exactly how the matter stood, and he promised to write fully on the subject to Lord George Hamilton, so that no question might arise as to what I was going to bring forward. I told him that I was perfectly prepared to put the matter off as long as he desired, but he did not desire it, and I have since got a message from him: "Have written to Limerick to arrange reply." I can only make that answer to the noble Lord's statement.