, in calling attention to the services of Captain Grant, and moving an Address to Her Majesty praying for the grant of some suitable reward, complained that the Board which had been appointed to inquire into the merits of Captain Grant's invention had not been fairly constituted. Captain Grant's apparatus had been spoken of in terms of approval by several distinguished general officers, by official Boards, and by two Secretaries of State. It was now said that improvements had been made in the apparatus; but he should like to know the invention in which improvements had not been made. The man who originated the principle ought to be rewarded; and Captain Grant said that his principle had been adopted, though there were alterations in the details. His noble Friend the Secretary for War had spoken of the great reduction caused in one item of the Army Estimates by the saving in the consumption of fuel. As Captain Grant's apparatus had been in use for the last eight years, there could be no doubt that much of the saving was to be attributed to the invention for which the gallant captain claimed remuneration. His hon. and gallant Friend (General Lindsay) had proposed that the remuneration to Captain Grant should be equal to the amount saved in one year's consumption of fuel. In reply to that proposition, the late Sir George Lewis said there was no precedent for making a grant of £25,000 or £30,000 for services like those of Captain Grant; thereby acknowledging that by Captain Grant's invention from £25,000 to £30,000 had been saved in the annual consumption of coal. He wanted to know whether Captain Grant himself had been shelved, although the service and the public had the advantage of his invention. Only two years ago, when a force of 12,000 was sent to Canada, Captain Grant was sent for to know if he could prepare cooking apparatus for the force; and within one month he prepared the necessary kitchens for that number of men. Sir. Rowland Hill had been rewarded, and properly so, 524 for his improvement in the postal system; and within the last two or three years Parliament had voted a sum of £5,000 to the gentleman who had enabled us to separate our postage stamps without tearing them. We were spending millions sterling for improving the arms used in the destruction of our enemies; and he thought the House ought not to refuse a fair recompense to a man who had contributed so much to the comfort of the soldier, and effected such a saving in our army service. Under these circumstances, he begged to move that this House would, on Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty.
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to consider the services of Captain Grant, and order him some suitable reward for his services in improving the system of Cooking in the Army, and effecting a considerable saving in the Public Expenditure for Fuel,"—(Colonel North,)
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
said, this question had been before the House for a long time, and the House had on a previous occasion come to a decision after full discussion and consideration; and he did hope that if his hon. and gallant Friend divided on the present occasion the House would come to a final conclusion on the subject. He hoped they would pronounce an opinion that would be decisive, and would show they were not willing that Captain Grant's claims should be perpetually coming before them. The question was originally brought forward on a Motion by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wigan (General Lindsay) declaring that Captain Grant ought to receive remuneration. That Motion was negatived, but only by a narrow majority; and on subsequent occasions in the same Session the subject was brought before the House. Later in the Session, the hon. and gallant Member for Wigan again asked Sir George Lewis whether, considering the narrow majority against his Motion, the case ought not to be deemed one for a Commission? Sir George Lewis promised that an inquiry by Commission should take place. A Commission was appointed; and the Commissioners came 525 to the conclusion that no further remuneration ought to be given to Captain Grant. Again, last Session, the hon, and gallant Member for Wigan brought the subject forward; and his noble Friend (Lord De Grey) and himself having considered the case, came to the conclusion that although Captain Grant had received all he was entitled to under the conditions upon which he had offered his services, although he had been allowed his expenses, and although different sums of money had been paid to him which were intended by the Government of the day to be payment in full for his services, still as he had devoted a good deal of time to the public service his case was one which might be inquired into with the view of seeing whether Government would be justified in offering him further remuneration. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel North) had criticized the constitution of the Board to which this last inquiry had been intrusted; but, as he understood, General Lindsay before he went to Canada expressed himself satisfied with its constitution. Captain Grant did not say he asked remuneration for any benefit or increase of comfort he had conferred on the soldier—he said he rested his claim on one point—namely, that he was entitled to compensation for the annual saving in the consumption of fuel which had been effected by his apparatus. Now the Commission had examined into that point; and they said in their Report they were unable conscientiously to declare that any saving of fuel was to be attributed to Captain Grant's apparatus independently of other causes. He rested his claim on a Report of 1856 received from the garrison of Woolwich, by which it appeared that a very large consumption of fuel had taken place there. The quantity stated in the Report as to what had been consumed was in excess of the regulations; and if it had been used, the excess must have been paid for by the men and not by the Government. Other reports were made from other stations; and at Brompton Barracks, for instance, it was found that under the old system 80 lb. of fuel was sufficient to cook for eighty men, being 1 lb. per man, which was under the allowance given for Captain Grant's system. The saving of fuel was not due so much to any particular apparatus as to the men being instructed in the economical use of fuel. It was admitted that Captain Grant deserved great credit for having called attention to the defective state of the ar- 526 rangements formerly existing; but in 1858 the Commission on the Sanitary Condition of the Army went fully into all questions of this sort, and it was absurd to suppose that if Captain Grant had not called attention before to the subject, the attention of the Commission would not have been directed to it, and that all the improvements subsequently made would not have been made in 1858, even if Captain Grant had not brought forward his apparatus. Captain Grant's system was merely an adaptation of a system formerly known, and there was no inherent saving of fuel in it. It was not placed in any new barrack now erected. A system was now in use much more like the old one, by which steel boilers were substituted for the old cast iron ones; and the consumption of fuel did not exceed from ½lb. to ¾lb. daily per man. It was quite understood by the hon. and gallant Member for Wigan last year that the Commission was to settle the question, and he was surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have brought it forward again. Any hon. Gentleman who would take the trouble to read through the evidence would see that the case on which Captain Grant claimed so large a remuneration had not been made out. The Commission, however, took into consideration that, for several years, Captain Grant's suggestions had been encouraged by Lord Panmure and other Secretaries for War, and that he had been employed, with little intermission, for several years, and they were of opinion that though no engagement had been made with Captain Grant, and though it was never understood that he should be entitled to anything beyond the expenses he incurred, still there was no reason why he should not be remunerated for his services. If Captain Grant had asked for any such remuneration the War Office would probably have given him the full pay of his rank, which was that of a captain of artillery, while he was employed on his experiments. It was thought now that £1,000 would be a fair sum to offer him, and that sum had been offered to him. Whether that offer had been accepted by him he was not aware; but he submitted that Captain Grant's own claim, founded on a supposed saving of fuel, had not been made out by him.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided;—Ayes 104; Noes 70: Majority 34.