There were contracts connected with the transaction. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in rising to second the Motion, said, that after the speech which they had just listened to, he would not trouble the House with any remarks on the general subject. He wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether a part of Deptford Dockyard was sold to Mr. Austin by private bargain for £71,800; if he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence on the subject, and any Papers relating to any other and higher offers that have been made; and further, if he will state the reasons for departing in this instance from the usual practice of a puble sale? In consequence of its being desired to secure a portion of Deptford Dockyard for a new cattle market, inquiries had been made, and it was ascertained that Mr. Austin had recently purchased 22 acres of that dockyard for about £71,000. He had received a letter from a gentleman, on whose authority he could safely rely, stating that the purchaser had refused an offer which would have secured to him a profit of £15,000. This information led him to believe that the nation had lost by the The official Return, in 1865, set down the value of the land at £134,270, the buildings at £253,470, and the fixed and moveable plant at £24,300, making a total value of £412,040. He had likewise ascertained that an acre of land contiguous to the dockyard, and used simply for storing timber, was sold the other day for £15,000. At this rate the 22 acres purchased by Mr. Austin would amount to £330,000. He had also been informed that a person who was prepared to give from £100,000 to £125,000 for the dockyard had not the least hope of such an offer being accepted, because in his belief the property, if sold in lots, would realize more than £200,000 when it came to be offered for public competition. The House might remember that, at a time of great commercial distress, a Mr. Baxter Langley desired to become the purchaser of Deptford Dockyard, in order that employment might be provided for some of the thousands of men then out of work, and that Mr. Langley was asked £450,000 for the property. [Mr. BAXTER dissented.] The hon. Member for Montrose shook his head. If what he said was not correct, he hoped the matter would be satisfactorily cleared up. It was not improbable that the House would be told that the valuation given was not a very sound one; but it had been based upon the price which had been paid for the surrounding land. He was aware that a part of the dockyard had been retained with something like a thousand feet frontage, and a portion of it-he believed over five acres out of 27-had been sold to the ground landlord, Mr. Evelyn, for £27,200. If this was the value of the land, £4,800 per acre would be the full value. But, instead of the £71,800 which represented the money received for the 22 acres, the country ought to have received £105,600. If these statements were inaccurate, it was right the country should be informed in what respect they were so. was another point upon which he would touch. A statement had been made in The United Service Gazette of an extraordinary kind, referring to Chatham and the sale of Deptford Dockyard, and when a statement of such a character appeared in a paper of such authority uncontradicted, it was incumbent on the Government to meet it. The statement, among other things, set forth that the purchaser There of the Deptford Dockyard was a Mr. | cattle. Austin, who was said to be formerly the landlord of a tavern at St. George's Road, Lambeth, afterwards of Peel's Coffee House, Fetter Lane, then joint proprietor with Mr. Henry Essex Bristow (brother of the Solicitor to the Admiralty), of the Beulah Spa Hotel, Norwood, and now a wine merchant in Billiter Street. Having this question brought before him, he felt himself bound, as a Member of Parliament, to bring it before the House, in order that the Government might have an opportunity of stating to the House what were the real facts of the case. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances and causes which have led to the large increase in the cost of the works for the extension of the Dockyards at Chatham and Portsmouth beyond the amounts set forth in the Act 28 and 29 Vic. c. 51, and what variations, if any, have been made or ordered from the works described in the said Act; also, whether the works included in the contracts made by authority of that Act, and laid before Parliament, are being executed in accordance with the drawings attached to such contracts, and as to the authority under which alterations have been made, and what has been or will be the effect on the cost of the works by such alterations; also, into the circumstances which have led to the disposal of Deptford Dockyard for an amount so much below the value thereof stated in the Stock Valuation Account," (Mr. Cawley,) -instead thereof. SIR DAVID SALOMONS said, that no person could be more interested in the Deptford Dockyard than his constituents. He was able to speak of the conduct of the Admiralty with regard to this dockyard. It was impossible for any person to behave in a more open and straightforward manner with regard to the sale of that dockyard than the hon. Member who was the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Baxter). The moment it was found that the Admiralty had decided to sell the Deptford Dockyard, he (Sir David Salomons) called at the Admiralty and ventured to ask the Secretary of the Admiralty if they had fixed a price, and the Secretary gave him the price which the Admiralty would take. He (Sir David Salomons) told him that he hoped to be able to restore the trade of Deptford by the Corporation of London purchasing the dockyard in connection with the proposed market for foreign Sir Henry Selin-Ibbetson He was told that the Government had fixed the price at £80,000, but that probably £75,000 would be taken, and that, as several persons were about the land, he had better bestir himself. The Corporation of London, on being consulted, did not think it expedient to enter into the negotiation. Being anxious, however, that his constituents should have the advantage of the dockyard, being occupied, he consulted almost every person he met connected with shipping to influence them to establish commercial docks on the south side of the river and the advantage which they would be to the trade of London. But he did not succeed. at length gathered from the local papers that a buyer for the docks had been found. He was, however, astonished to find that while £75,000 was the price at which the docks could be bought; the docks had been purchased for a firm of American shipwrights at £140,000, and this story struck him as savoring strongly of the dealings of the year 1866. But the whole story was a fable. He made this statement to show that the Admiralty had acted fairly as regards the price at which they offered the property. At the same time, he thought the Committee would not be undesirable. He SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE said, he was one of the Committee on Dockyards, which recommended that the dockyards of Deptford and Woolwich should be abolished. He meant so much of each as could be rendered available for building purposes. The Deptford Dockyard comprised 27 acres 1 rood and 23 perches; the length of quay accommodation, 2,000 feet. The Committee recommended the execution of extensive works at Chatham; and Mr. Scamp, who at that time was the engineer of the Admiralty, drew plans and prepared specifications of the works, which were approved of. An Act of Parliament was passed; contracts were entered into for the purpose of carrying out the works. But these plans had been entirely departed from. Not only had the Admiralty contractor fallen into difficulties, and been relieved from his contract, but the whole undertaking had been boulversed, and the country was in entire ignorance of what the works were to be. He would not dwell upon the various rumours afloat respecting individuals, as these might possibly be investigated by the Committee if the Government would | country by advertisement and by a paraassent, as he sincerely trusted they graph in the money article of The Times would, to its appointment. The Com- that Deptford Dockyard was in the marmittee ought to direct its attention, first, ket. Moreover, experienced valuators, to the sufficiency of Mr. Scamp's plans, legal gentlemen, and merchants in the which, in his opinion would be estab- City were consulted as to the best course lished; secondly, to the circumstances to be pursued, and they unanimously which led to Colonel Clarke not carrying advised the Board on no account to put out those plans; thirdly, to the question up the dockyard to public sale, as the of convict labour; and, lastly, what was inevitable consequence would be what the position of those works at present was termed a "knock-out," which would how far they were authorized by the depreciate the value of the property in Acts of that House, and how far they the market. Acting on this advice the were the mere dictates of the Admiralty. Government resolved to seek an offer Taking this opportunity of making a for Deptford Dockyard. He had seen it few remarks on Deptford Dockyard, the stated that the property was sold for hon. and gallant Baronet referred to the £71,500, whereas it was valued in the fact of its value, according to the valua- Admiralty books at £412,000; but it tion of the Admiralty, being £412,040, was impossible for him to endeavour to and it was understood that the men refute all the statements and imputations would be transferred to Chatham. The-some of them supremely ridiculous, stories that were going abroad with respect to the sale of the dockyard were of a very serious description. For instance, it was said that Mr. Austin, who at one time kept Peel's Coffeehouse, came forward and purchased the property from the Admiralty for £73,000. Of course, he pronounced no opinion as to the truth or falsehood of this, or of similar stories; but he strongly urged that the whole of the facts ought to be thoroughly investigated. MR. BAXTER said, that before his hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) replied to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley), he desired to say a few words on the Deptford part of the question, because he was primarily responsible for advising his right hon. Friend at the head of the Board of Admiralty to accept the offer which was made for the purchase of that dockyard. He admitted that the hon. and gallant Baronet, as a Member of that House, was entitled to know all the facts of the case. When the present Board of Admiralty came into Office they found that dockyard shut up, and they resolved that it should be disposed of either sold or let as speedily as possible, with a view of giving employment to the large number of labourers thrown out of work by the shutting up. This was more than a year and a-half ago, and the Board were most deliberate in their action. The hon. Baronet, he might remark, was mistaken when he said that Admiralty property was generally sold by auction. It was made known throughout the which had been made in the naval and military newspapers. Mr. Evelyn had the right of pre-emption with regard to a portion of the dockyard, and a portion was bought by him at a former period for £29,000. After the advertisements were inserted, tenders were received at £48,000, £50,000, £55,000, £58,000, and £60,000 respectively. All these offers he thought proper to decline, as being of insufficient value. A long period then elapsed, and no offers came in, and the Government, eventually, took other measures to let the public know that the land was for sale. Meanwhile, he received many visits from his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Sir David Salomons), who treated, on behalf of the Corporation of the City of London, for the purchase of the yard. At that time the Admiralty were not prepared to state what was the value of the land, as they had not received the report of the gentleman appointed to estimate it; but at a subsequent interview he told the hon. Baronet that if the Corporation made an offer of £80,000 for the remainder of the ground, that offer would be favourably entertained by the Admiralty, and, probably, by the Treasury also. The hon. Gentleman intimated to him that that was out of the question, and for a considerable time no further offer was made. At last the Admiralty received an offer from Mr. Marsh, the well known auctioneer, of £71,500, and with the full consent_of the Treasury, and the Woods and Forests, the Admiralty accepted that sum, which was within £5,000 of the valua- | was furnished by the circumstance that tion furnished to them by very compe- he was not now supposed to be financially tent parties. These negotiations, he in a very sound position. The advantage might remark, occupied many months, of the employment of convict labour had, and the Admiralty did not hastily jump he thought, in the present instance been to a conclusion. He must give a most over-estimated, though where no partiunqualified contradiction to the state- cular difficulties existed it might be emment referred to by the hon. Baronet ployed with advantage. He was sorry (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) that Mr. that the scope of the proposed inquiry Baxter Langley offered anything like was so large, and he should like to hear £450,000 for the purchase of the dock- the answer of the Government before yard, in order to give employment to the he decided which way he should vote. men out of work. If the dockyard had He could only say, on the part of a been wanted for such a purpose, he brother officer whose character was to should not have hesitated to recommend some extent involved in the question, his right hon. Friend to sell it at less that there was nothing he should like than its market value. The valuation better than a full inquiry. The result of of £412,000 included not only the value such an inquiry would, he believed, be of the land but the value of stores, completely to exculpate Colonel Clarke. buildings, docks, and many other things which were now of little use, and most of which had been sold. He had only to add that he knew nothing about Mr. Austin until the last moment. His dealings were with Mr. Marsh. They had sold a portion of the yard to Mr. Evelyn, a portion to Mr. Marsh for Mr. Austin; they had thrown a portion into the victualling yard, and they had sold a quantity of stores. Taking all these points together they had obtained for Deptford Dockyard £140,000 instead of £70,000. All he had to state further was that if he had made any mistake he was very sorry for it; but the affair had been conducted with great deliberation and care. CAPTAIN BEAUMONT said, the position in which Colonel Clarke stood was that he had been called upon to do a greater amount of work for £230,000 than was demanded of him under the original estimate. The total amount, he might add, which the works would cost was actually within that estimate. Any failures that had arisen in connection with them had been the result of improvident arrangements on the part of the contractor. It was said that the contract should have been finished in the month of April; but the money necessary to finish the work was not forthcoming. It had been further stated that the works had been carried out in a discreditable manner; but an examination of them would, he thought, show that that was not the fact. So far as the contractor was concerned, he believed he had done his work as a contractor extremely well; and a proof that he had not been overpaid Mr. Baxter SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he thought the House was placed in a position of some difficulty in consequence of having before it two very different subjects, both of great importance. On the second of those subjects-that relating to the sale of Deptford Dockyard he wished to say a few words. He was very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Admiralty discuss the question in a very different, and much more becoming tone from that which he assumed the evening before, when an opportunity was afforded the Government of giving an explanation with regard to certain rumours which were very prevalent out-of-doors. It was extremely desirable, in his opinion, that some explanation should be given with respect to those startling statements which had appeared in the public prints, and which, up to the present time, had been allowed to remain uncontradicted. The statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty on the subject of the sale of Deptford Dockyard he could not regard as satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be conscious that the property had been sold for a sum below its value. [Mr. BAXTER dissented.] The hon. Gentleman might shake his head; but although the statements in the public prints were almost incredible, it was hard, under the circumstances, to come to the conclusion that the property would not have brought a large sum. In that view he was strengthened by some portions of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He alluded to the common practice of selling public property by auction, and explained that that course had not been resorted to in the present instance, be- | tire works at once. Well, £1,250,000 cause it was feared an understanding was granted in 1865, and if the House might have been arrived at between the would refer back to the Estimates for bidders, and that the full value of the 1866-7, 1867-8, and 1868-9, they would property would not, as a consequence, be find that sum set down for the extenobtained. But there was no necessity sion of Chatham Dockyard. Then they that there should have been a forced would find, in the following column, sale and that any offer made should have the amount voted on account of the been accepted. The hon. Gentleman work; in a third column, the sum reappeared wholly to forget that he could quired to be taken that year; and, in a have put a reserve bidding, and that he fourth, the amount which remained to could thus have secured himself from the be expended in future years. There was danger of seeing the property knocked also a distinct statement of the total sum down at a figure below its real value. the House had given permission to exThen the hon. Gentleman proceeded to pend. How, then, did the case stand? say—and in that he was quite correct- That this sum in the Estimates was now, that the estimated value of £412,000 for the first time, raised from £1,250,000 was arrived at by including the value of to £1,750,000. But though the estimate certain buildings and properties which had been raised, the sum previously stood on the estate. That was perfectly voted had not yet been exhausted. And true; but the hon. Gentleman must bear then his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) in mind that the price for which the Go- came down to the House, and, speaking vernment sold it included all those in explanation of his Estimates for a buildings and properties. He spoke space of three hours, never stated that under correction; but he believed all the he had varied the sums voted for Chatproperties were included in the sum of ham and Portsmouth, and had increased £71,500. The Government must feel the liabilities of the nation by a sum of that the country had a right to expla- £1,157,000. What would have hapnation. Gentleman on that (the Opposi-pened if the House had gone on withtion) side, therefore, were perfectly jus-out noticing this matter? Why, next tified in saying that the Government year they should have been told that it were bound to explain what had been done; and he could not help thinking that the most satisfactory course would be that the transaction should be calmly and dispassionately inquired into by the proposed Committee. MR. SAMUDA said, the question for the House was this-whether there was anything in the transaction which required to have a greater degree of light thrown on it than could be done in Committee of Supply. For his own part, he should wait with great anxiety for an explanation as to the dockyards. At present, there were certain items with respect to which he could only express his astonishment that they had not before been brought under the notice of the House. How did the case stand with respect to Chatham? The House had departed from its usual practice of voting from year to year the sum required, and at the request of the Ministers of the Crown, represented by Lord Clarence Paget, had placed at their disposal a fixed sum which might be spread over a series of years, the object being to secure greater economy by enabling a contract to be entered on for the enVOL. CCI. [THIRD SERIES.] was too late; that the increased amount was on the Estimates of the year before, and that they had not taken any exception to it. Surely, it ought to have been the primary duty of the right hon. Gentleman-who had devoted the greater portion of his statement to explaining how grateful the House ought to be to him for reducing the Estimates by £840,000-to have stated that he had, by this unreferred-to increase in the Construction Estimates, actually committed them to an increase of £350,000 on the previous year. Now either a concise and satisfactory explanation could be given of this matter, or else it was a good case for investigation by a Select Committee; at all events the House was entitled to the best explanation the First Lord could give, and it was wholly inadmissible for him to take credit for having effected a saving of £840,000, when it was clearly known to him he was committing the country to an expenditure the House had not sanctioned of nearly £1,250,000, and hence on balance practically increasing the Estimates £330,000. There was another point upon which some explanation was neces 3 K |