Commons Sitting of 14 March 1864

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Armagh v. Maxwell, Charles Close, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Berwick-upon-Tweed Election.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
Resolution [March 11] reported—Land Securities Company (Stamp Duty on Mortgage Debentures)*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (£4,500,000)*; Consolidated Fund (£584,650)*.
Third Reading—Mutiny Bill*, and passed.

BERWICK-UPON-TWEED ELECTION.
MR. LONGFIELDbrought up the Report of the Select Committee.
House informed, that the Committee had determined—

1. That William Walter Cargill, esquire, is duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Berwiok-upon-Tweed.

1902

2. That no case of bribery was proved.

3. That it was not proved that corrupt practices prevailed at the said Election.

4. That there was no evidence laid before the Committee from which they had reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the said Election.

5. That the Petition of Alexander Mitchell was not frivolous and vexatious.

And the said Determination was ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
Report to lie upon the table.
Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Committee to be laid before this House.

OUTRAGES IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland—
  "Is he aware that many of the Irish Judges, in their Charges to Grand Juries, both at the present and at previous Assizes, have commented in strong terms on the great and the increasing inefficiency of the Irish Constabulary to prevent crime or to arrest the criminals:
  "Is it intended to remodel the Irish Constabulary so as to render its organization, discipline, and accoutrements less military, and better adapted to a local Police Force:
  "And will he lay before the House official Returns calculated to exhibit the nature and number of all serious outrages committed within the last two years in each county of Ireland, distinguishing those for which prosecutions or convictions have taken place from those which remain unprosecuted or unpunished?"
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, in reply, that there would be no objection to lay before the House Official Returns calculated to exhibit the nature and number of all serious outrages committed in Ireland for the time mentioned in the hon. Member's Question.

  SLAVE TRADE ON THE EAST COAST OF AFRICA.—QUESTION.
  LORD ALFRED CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any recent information as to the Slave Trade on the East Coast of Africa, and especially in the neighbourhood of Zanzibar; and whether any and what measures have been adopted to prevent the carrying on of that trade by the Portuguese and Northern Arabs?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that the information received by the Government with respect to the slave trade on the eastern coast of Africa was, he regretted to state, of a very unsatisfactory nature.

  1903
  While on the western coast the slave trade had greatly diminished, on the eastern it was very much on the increase. Her Majesty's cruisers had done all in their power during the last two or three years, and had captured upwards of one hundred Arab vessels with slaves on board; but the circumstances in which Her Majesty's ships were placed were very difficult. There were several reasons why they were not able to carry on the same action on the east as on the west coast. The cruisers were not sufficiently numerous, and since the abolition of the Indian navy there was not the same class of officers acquainted with the coast who were formerly able to put a stop to the slave traffic. According to information which he had received, between 20,000 and 30,000 slaves were carried off that coast annually by Arab vessels, which came down the Red Sea and from the Persian Gulf. This was partly the result of the efficacious measures taken by the Turkish Government, which had put an end to the slave trade on the Barbary coasts, so that the slave dealers bad now recourse to the eastern coast of Africa. Another cause of the increase of the traffic had been the inability of Her Majesty's ships to interfere with native vessels carrying on the coasting trade in the dominions of the Imaum of Muscat. Under the treaty with the Imaum the coasting trade in slaves was so far sanctioned that it could not be interfered with by Her Majesty's cruisers, and the consequence was that a very large slave trade had been carried on. The Sultan of Zanzibar had now, however, authorized Her Majesty's cruisers to stop vessels which perform these coasting voyages at certain times of the year, and that permission would enable the cruisers to put an end to a large amount of slave trade. Other causes of the increase of that trade had been the facilities afforded to Arab vessels for flying the French flag, and carrying French papers, and thus securing themselves from search, and the encouragement of the trade, if not a participation in it, on the part of a large number of subordinate Portuguese authorities; though the Portuguese Governor of Mozambique was, no doubt, doing his utmost to put a stop to the traffic. A number of representations had been made on this subject to the Portuguese Government, and Her Majesty's Government had received assurances over and over again that the traffic should be stopped, but hitherto this had not been
  1904
  done. He had read with feelings of horror the accounts sent by Dr. Livingstone and others of the cruelties and devastation resulting from the prevalence of the slave trade within the Portuguese dominions on the eastern coast of Africa. Her Majesty's Government would not lose sight of the subject, and every attempt would be made to put a stop to that detestable traffic.

BRITISH CURED HERRINGS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. MILLERsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any attempts have been made to induce the Government of Austria to reduce the prohibitory Duty charged on the importation of British cured herrings into that country; if so, what success has attended such endeavours, and if he be willing to lay upon the table of the House Copies of the Correspondence that may have passed for the attainment of that object?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that representations had been made to the Austrian Government on the subject, but they had altogether declined to do anything in the matter until the revision of the tariff between them and the Zollverein, which would take place in 1865; and then this subject would receive consideration. There was no correspondence which could, without disadvantage to the public service, be laid on the table.

  COURT MARTIAL ON COLONEL CRAWLEY.—QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he rose to ask the Judge Advocate, Whether the witnesses sent home from India for the defence of Colonel Crawley were privately cross-examined by the Deputy Judge Advocate at any time previous to their appearing before the Court Martial at Alder-shot?
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, in reply, that it was not correct that any witnesses were sent over from India expressly for the defence of Colonel Crawley. What took place was this:—A General order was issued by Sir Hugh Rose that all persons knowing anything of the matter should be sent over to England; upon their arrival, Colonel Sir Alfred Horsford, who was appointed to conduct the prosecution, applied to the Deputy Judge Advocate and asked his advice as to the course he should pursue,

  1905
  and undoubtedly the Deputy Judge Advocate gave the most obvious advice under the circumstances—namely, that the first thing was to ascertain what each person who had been thus sent over could prove, and they were examined for that purpose.

ARMSTRONG GUNS AT KAGOSIMA.

  QUESTION.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will lay upon the table of the House Admiral Kuper's Official Report of the performance of the Armstrong guns in the action at Kagosima?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETin reply, said, there would be no objection to lay upon the table of the House Admiral Kuper's Official Report of the performance of the Armstrong guns in the action at Kagosima.

DISCHARGE OF SOLDIERS IN 1864–5.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DAWSON DAMERsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, If, in consequence of the term of service of so many "ten years'" men in the Army expiring in 1864–5, the Government is prepared with any proposition by which they may secure the services of these old soldiers for a further period of eleven years, or, through them, making a sort of reserve in addition to the Pensioners?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONreplied, that a very large number of men were enlisted in 1854 for ten years'service, on account of the Crimean war, and they would be entitled to their discharge this year. Measures had been and still were under the consideration of the Government for inducing a large number of them to re-enlist. The apprehensions which appeared to be entertained of a large loss to the army were unfounded, and he would take an early opportunity of explaining on the Army Estimates how the matter really stood.
  General PEELsaid, he wished to know when the Returns on this subject which had been moved for would be laid on the table?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, they were now in course of preparation, and would be produced as early as possible.

  SOLDIERS' GARDENS.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it is proposed to afford Soldiers in the different Camps in the Country, and Generally where practicable, facilities for cultivating gardens, as was the practice on the Continent, and as has been recommended by a Military Commission?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, the wish of Earl de Grey was to afford the soldiers every possible facility for the cultivation of gardens. Wherever practicable, as at Aldershot, a commencement had already been made. The recommendations to which his hon. Friend referred were again under the consideration of the military authorities, and he hoped to be able shortly to announce that they would be adopted.

  WEST RIDING ASSIZE.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Papers on the subject of the West Riding Assize will be laid upon the table of the House this week, and whether he will undertake that they will be in the hands of Members on the day that Parliament re-assembles?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that they had been laid on the table some days, and that steps would be taken to have them printed and circulated during the recess.

EAST INDIA—GOLD CURRENCY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, in seeking to introduce the English sovereign into India, he contemplates ordering the Collectors and other Revenue officers to receive the sovereign as a ten rupee piece, taking the chance of being able to issue it at the same rate; and whether he intends to pay the interest and principal of the Public Debt in sovereigns at ten rupees each, and to make this coin a legal tender for all debts contracted in rupees?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he must beg to explain that what he stated on a former occasion was, that it was desirable to introduce the sovereign into India, and that he should be very unwilling to adopt the suggestion of an hon. Member that a

  1907
  coin of exactly the value of ten rupees should be introduced, because that would approach so nearly to the sovereign in value, and would create an objection to the introduction of the sovereign. There was a difficulty, however, in the matter, on account of the sovereign being worth about sixpence more than the ten rupees.

DENMARK AND GERMANY—DANISH BLOCKADE OF GERMAN PORTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FENWICKsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has received information that the Danish Government will permit vessels that have been delayed by ice in the port of Lubec to leave that port without being subject to capture; and whether Her Majesty's Government will urge on the Banish Government the justice of permitting German ships which have been delayed by ice in German ports before the commencement of the war, and having cargoes on board belonging to British merchants, to leave such port without being subject to capture?
  MR. LAYARD,in reply, begged to state that the regulations of the Danish Government on this subject had been published in the Gazette. It was therein stated that a reasonable time, to be named by the owners of vessels detained in port by the ice, would be allowed for their departure. He had not received any information that Lubec had been blockaded. A few hours ago, however, an intimation reached him of the blockade of the following ports—Cammim, Swinemunde, Wolgast, Greifswalde, Stralsund, and Barth.

  CONVICTS—REMISSION OF PENAL SERVITUDE.—QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the case that a notice is put up in every Convict prison to the effect, that Convicts under sentences for life may be eligible to have their cases considered, with a view to a remission of their sentences, after a period of from eight to twelve years; whether persons who, having been sentenced to death, have had that sentence commuted into a sentence of transportation or penal servitude for life, are held
  1908
  to be entitled to the same consideration as Convicts originally sentenced to punishment for life; and whether he will have any objection to lay upon the table a Return of the cases in which Convicts whose sentences have been so commuted have subsequently been liberated?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that no notice such as that to which the hon. Baronet referred in the first part of his Question, was now put up in the convict Prisons. The notice now used was merely an explanation that all convicts under long sentences were exempted from the General rules as to remission. Each case was to be considered on its own merits, and no time was fixed when a convict would be entitled to claim remission. The practice under the old system had probably led the hon. Baronet into a misapprehension as to what was now done. There was a rule that no convict under a long sentence should be sent abroad, until he had undergone eight years of his sentence in this country. As to the second Question, it was very difficult to reply to it within the limits of an ordinary answer, and he hoped he might have an opportunity of explaining the matter more fully on some other occasion. He could only say briefly that no difference was made in the regulations between the two classes of convicts referred to—those who, having been sentenced to death, had had that sentence commuted to penal servitude for life, and those on whom the latter sentence had been passed in the first instance. Practically, however, a distinction was made between them. As to the Return asked for, there would be no objection to granting it, if it were limited as to time; and, if the hon. Baronet would communicate with him privately, that could be arranged.

VACCINATION REGISTRATION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Health, Whether, as the registration of cases of vaccination is a total failure, both for statistical purposes and as an effective adjunct for the prosecution of offenders under the Act, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to amend the Act this Session?
  MR. LOWE, in reply, said, it was quite true that the system of registration under the Vaccination Act was very bad, but it

  1909
  would cost a great deal of money to improve it. Moreover, even when improved, it would not make these compulsory measures effectual to any extent. The great difficulty in working them was due not so much to defective legislation as to the reluctance of persons to prosecute poor people for disobedience to a law, the neglect of which was countenanced by too many who ought to know better. He was sorry, therefore, that he could not hold out any hopes of an improvement in the system.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

THE INUNDATION AT SHEFFIELD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ROEBUCK: Sir, if the House will permit me, I will ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Question, of which I have given him private notice. I have no doubt his attention has been called to the terrible calamity which occurred at Sheffield on Friday night. I wish to ask the right hon. Baronet, Whether there will be any objection to the Government sending down to Sheffield a Government Inspector to inquire—first, into the cause of the catastrophe; second, as to the number of persons killed and the amount of property destroyed; and lastly, as to what means, if any, there are of relieving the distress of those who have suffered?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, I hare, in common with, I suppose, all hon. Members, read with deep concern the accounts of the dreadful catastrophe at Sheffield. I received to-day from the Mayor an application for a Government Inspector to be sent down to inquire into the circumstances connected with the calamity. I also received from the coroner a request that an Inspector might examine the works, and be prepared to give evidence at the adjourned inquest. In consequence of these applications, Mr. Rawlinson, civil engineer, has been directed to proceed immediately to Sheffield, and to put himself into communication with the authorities of the place, in order to give every assistance in his power in the inquiry. Mr. Rawlinson will arrive in Sheffield this evening. I have informed Mr. Rawlinson that if, on conferring with the local authorities, he
  1910
  thought that additional assistance was required for the purposes of the inquiry, another gentleman would be associated with him. With regard to any aid being afforded, I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman does not refer to pecuniary help, but merely to assistance to persons deprived of their homes by the inundation. I can only say that the Government will be glad to do anything they can to co-operate with the local authorities. No statement has, however, been made to me by those authorities that any such assistance is required.

BOMBARDMENT OF KAGOSIMA.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. LAYARDasked the indulgence of the House in making a statement in vindication of the character of two very meritorious and excellent public servants, Lieutenant Colonel Neale and Admiral Kuper, When information reached those officers of the sensation which had been caused in this country by the very exaggerated statements which had been made concerning the events which had taken place in Japan, they naturally felt very deeply pained. He had that morning received a despatch from Colonel Neale, relating exactly what took place at Kagosima, which he trusted the House would permit him to read, as due to the gallant officer and Admiral Kuper. The despatch would, of course, be immediately printed and circulated, but he was anxious to bring it before the House at the earliest moment. Colonel Neale wrote as follows:—
  "Yokohama, Jan. 16.
  "My Lord,—The misconceptions which appear to have influenced the remarks of some of the public journals in England in respect to the proceedings at Kagosima, as published in the London Gazette, I venture to conceive, render it proper that I should place upon record a series of facts, the official recital of which did not seem to me at the time to be of urgent necessity. The statements of the Prince of Satsuma's agents, herewith enclosed, were made in free and friendly conversation with the members of this Legation, while the indemnity money was in course of counting and reception. I deem it desirable to add that the population of Kagosima at no period exceeded 40,000 inhabitants, far less 180,000, as has been strangely imagined, to serve as a more striking text for comments; and further, that those 40,000 souls, men, women, and children, withdrew while their huts and paper houses incurred the risks attendant upon stray shot and shell from a British squadron, audaciously fired upon by numerous batteries, because it had signalled its intention to obtain redress for a barbarous murder and outrage committed upon British subjects, for which all redress had been evaded.

  1911
  Subsequent events, the voluntary payment of the indemnity demanded; the formal obligation entered into to execute the murderers of Mr. Richardson when arrested; the professions of friendship cheerfully expressed by Satsuma's envoys on behalf of their chief; their desire to cultivate friendly and social intercourse with the British nation; and their good humour and graceful offerings (of fruit) to the crew of the flagship of the British admiral after the facts of Kagosima; would all imply that the agents of Her Majesty displayed a degree of caution and moderation duly appreciated by those most deeply interested.
  "I have, &c,
  "EDWAKD ST. JOHN NEALE."
  An inclosure contained the purport of the conversation and statements of the agents of Prince Satsuma, on the occasion of the payment of the indemnity money at Her Majesty's Legation, on the 11th of December, 1863, and was as follows:—
  "The agents for the payment of the indemnity stated that they had taken advantage of a coming typhoon at Kagosima to fire on the squadron, but that the typhoon had been the cause of the extent of the conflagration, and in consequence of there being no people in the town to put it out; that the number of soldiers collected in and about the batteries was 6,000; that immediately upon the appearance of the squadron, and even previously, as they had heard through Nagasaki it was coming, the Prince of Satsuma had ordered the inhabitants to retire into the villages, and that, therefore, no harm had happened to the people; that if we returned to Kagosima, we should find the town nearly restored to its original state; that reserves of soldiers were kept outside the batteries, but that it was difficult to get them to go into them to supply the place of those who were killed; that, immediately upon our taking the steamers, a horseman had been despatched at full speed to ask the Prince of Satsuma what should be done, when he directed that the batteries should immediately open fire upon the squadron.
  "ABEL A. J. GOWEH. LACKLAND FLETCHER.
  "JOHN MACDONALD. A. VON SIEBOLD."

THE NAVY ESTIMATES.

  EXPLANATION.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Sir, in moving that you do now leave the chair, I wish, if the House will permit me, to advert for one moment to certain circumstances which occurred on Thursday evening last on the Navy Estimates. I am sure the House do not desire that anything should go forth to the country to the effect that any Government, or any Member of any Government, should have endeavoured to do that which would be most improper, namely, smuggle a Vote through this House. As this is rather a personal ques-
  1912
  tion, which has reference to myself and others, I thought the House would perhaps permit me to state shortly what took place on Thursday evening. On that occasion it was my duty, when Mr. Massey took the chair, to place Vote No. 8, for the Wages of the Artificers in our Dockyards, in his hands. My hon. Friend and Colleague, the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had promised that he would take that opportunity of making a statement—and I think a very interesting statement it would have been—to the Committee, having particular reference to the artificers in our dockyards. I had likewise, on a previous occasion, stated that such was the intention of my hon. Friend. When I placed the Vote in Mr. Massey's hands, my hon. Friend got up to make his statement; but he failed, unfortunately, to catch Mr. Massey's eye. [Laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen will allow me to conclude, I think they will see that their laughter has been rather out of place. My hon. Friend got up to make a statement, according to promise. He will best be able to explain the course he took, and what occurred as regards himself; but I wish to refer to what took place as far as I was a party to it. The Vote was put and passed; and I confess, very naturally, the surprise of the Committee was loudly expressed by several hon. Gentlemen, that, whereas the Government had promised that a statement should be made, in point of fact the Vote had been passed without any statement at all, and no opportunity had been given to the Committee to express any opinion upon the Vote or any objection to it. This was perfectly natural on the part of the Committee, and I was not surprised at it. Several hon. Gentlemen spoke on the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) insinuated that there had been, what I may call, foul play. He felt perfectly certain, he said, that my hon. Friend and Colleague did desire to address the Committee; but he hinted that some one had pulled him down. I could not help thinking at the time, that if anyone were to venture to attempt to pull my hon. Friend and Colleague down, he would run great risk of being pulled up for it. The hon. Member for Sunderland was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. My hon. Friend said, he thought an insult—
  MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is not entitled to repeat the words spoken in the debate on Thursday night.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: My object is to satisfy the House, if you will permit me, that there was no intention on the part of the Government to deceive the Committee of Supply.
  MR. SPEAKER: These are matters of personal explanation; and it is exceedingly inconvenient to refer at such length to a previous debate.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: If I am not allowed to quote what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham said, I shall not be able to state that which is very honourable to him—namely, that having expressed himself in terms which he felt afterwards he would desire to retract, he, very handsomely, acknowledged his mistake. Perhaps, however, the rules of the House will allow me to read a letter I wrote to my hon. Friend, and, likewise, his letter to me in reply. My hon. Friend said in his place that there had been a trick practised by some one, and an insult passed upon the House; and I agree with him that the affair bore that aspect. When he sat down, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up, and assured the Committee that there was no intention on the part of the Government to deceive—that it was a miscarriage—an accident. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham then said in answer that he acquitted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but there was another Member of the Government whom he did not acquit, and who, he hoped, would be sorry for what he had done. I then rose in defence of my hon. Colleague the Member for Halifax, not believing that I was supposed to be implicated myself, and I said I was perfectly aware his intention was to address the Committee. So the debate ended. What was my astonishment when hon. Gentlemen informed me in private that I was the culprit—that it was I who had attempted to pull my hon. Colleague down, and so prevented him making his statement! I thought it was due to myself that I should set the matter straight, and accordingly I wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham a letter which I hope the House will permit me to read, and likewise the letter he wrote to me in reply. I wrote the following letter:—
  "My dear Bright,—From any one but an eminent man I should treat such insinuations as were uttered by you last evening with silence, but, coming from you, I cannot allow the matter to drop. I shall, therefore, on Monday evening, in the debate on Navy Estimates, feel it to be my duty to give, unless you withdraw the insinuation
  1914
  that I was a party to a 'trick,' a full explanation, and shall leave it to the opinion of the House whether your most unworthy suspicions were in any way justifiable."
  My hon. Friend wrote to me the following answer:—
  "Dear Lord Clarence Paget—I am sorry you are annoyed at what happened on Thursday night. I have spoken to Mr. Stansfeld and to Mr. Massey, and I come to the conclusion that the whole affair was a blunder of a mixed kind, and I think if you or Mr. Stansfeld had at the time explained the exact circumstances of the case, the little unpleasantness would not have occurred. I shall be quite willing to say this in the House on Monday evening."
  I have only to add that I was no party to any trick, and that I regret what occurred as much as any Member of this House.

SCHOOL OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE.
  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON,who had given notice to ask the Secretary of the Admiralty what is the present state of the arrangements, so far as the Admiralty are concerned, for establishing a School of Naval Architecture, said, he need not trouble the House long upon this Question, as full explanations had been already offered on the subject. He understood that the Department of Science and Art would exercise control over the proposed School, and he earnestly hoped that the intended arrangements would conduce to harmonious action between the directors of that department and the naval authorities and the mercantile marine. He should like to know, however, Whether the Board of Admiralty would object, now that the School was to be established at Kensington, to the removal of the naval models from the site they now occupied at Somerset House, to the school of Naval Architecture at Kensington? These models would form an appropriate part of the new institution, and would, he believed, be productive of beneficial results both to the Royal Navy and to the mercantile marine. Perhaps his noble Friend might not be able to give him an immediate answer, but he earnestly hoped that this would be done.
DOCKYARD PATRONAGE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he rose to ask, Whether the practice with respect to the patronage of the Dockyards, as laid down by Sir Charles Wood, Sir Francis Baring, and Sir John Pakington,

  1915
  has been subsequently departed from; and whether that patronage is now distributed by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Controller of the Navy, instead of by the Superintendents of the Dockyards. The "man in the street" told them that they were going to have an election, and it was necessary that they should know the ground on which they were to stand. As far as he was personally concerned, he had no complaint whatever to make; but he understood that at the boroughs of Devon-port and Chatham there were circumstances which might give rise to very great confusion at the next election. They had it in evidence that a gallant officer, for whose ability and character he had the greatest respect—the present Controller of the Navy (Rear Admiral Robinson)—was an elector of Devonport; that at the last election for that borough, while in command of the steam reserve—an important body, many of the persons serving in which had votes, and the man in charge of which, therefore, had considerable power over electors—this gallant officer exercised his electoral privilege at eight in the morning, and duly proceeded to the place where the poll was declared at four o'clock, and there in his uniform heard the result of the voting declared, with what demonstrations of feeling it was not material to inquire. The same officer was now the Controller of the Navy, and, without attributing to him any motive except that which a man of the highest honour might possess, still, if he and the First Lord of the Admiralty, as he was informed, had the entire dispensation of the patronage in the borough, it was absurd to suppose the public would not take it for granted that considerable political influence would thus be brought to bear upon the election. With regard to Chatham, at the last election a very near connection of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty was one of the candidates; and he was given to understand that the noble Lord, having settled his business with his constituents at Sandwich, appeared at the dockyard and to the best of his ability assisted his relative in his proceedings at Chatham. Now, the circumstances had not changed in either of those places. At Devonport, indeed, they were rather worse, inasmuch as the officer who before was head of the steam reserve was now Controller of the Navy. At Chatham, the gentleman to whom he had alluded was again ready to ask the suffrages of the constituency. Therefore he
  1916
  wished, before the contingency of another election occurred, to know on what ground they were to stand, and whether they were to have a repetition of the proceedings and recriminations which had marked previous contests of that kind?

NEUTRALITY IN AMERICA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ROEBUCK: Sir, I have a Question to put to the noble Lord the First Minister, which I am very anxious that he should himself answer. I will preface this Question with two preliminary statements. The first is, that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General informed this House that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to remonstrate with the Government of the Confederate States on their employment of agents in this country for illegal purposes. I would suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that he was then speaking about a matter which was sub judice; that he spoke not merely in his own person, and that person one to whom we all pay very great respect, but in the character of a great law officer. And not only that, but by his side sat the Attorney General, and it was quite clear that he spoke the opinion of the Attorney General. Moreover, he was the only Member of the Ministry who spoke on that occasion, so that he might be supposed to be the organ of the Administration in himself. The matter on which he spoke was then under the consideration of the law courts, and he expressed distinctly an opinion upon it. I think it would have been wiser if he had abstained altogether from any expression of opinion on a matter of that sort, especially in this House. But the Question being sub judice, we have to inquire at what point the transactions then were. It appears to me, Sir, that they were exactly at this point: that the Government believed certain things were being done by the Confederate States of America in this country which they held to be illegal; that they had brought those things before the courts of law; and that, as far as we have now gone, the courts of law have decided against the Government. No doubt there was an appeal, and that appeal—(I know not what may have happened to-day)—is still sub judice. Therefore, we may say that the Government, on mere suspicion, are about to remonstrate with the Government of the Confederate States. That is my first position. The next one is that

  1917
  the First Minister of the Crown has stated as his policy—and every other Member of the Government who has spoken on the subject has said the same thing—the First Minister has stated that they wish to maintain the strictest neutrality between the Federal and the Confederate States. Now, I believe that the noble Lord at the head of the Government really desires to do that; but I am afraid that the noble Lord at the head of the Government is not altogether master of the Government. There are other powers in the Government, and there is one great power that, I think, somewhat overshadows him and the whole Administration. The noble Lord the First Minister has won for himself not only the confidence of the country, but, I believe, its affectionate regard, and anything that he says he will do we have perfect confidence that he means to do. But, Sir, there is another power by the side of that noble Lord, and a power such as has always appeared in the Liberal Government of this country since the days of the Revolution. We have always had some member of what is called "a Revolution family" in a Liberal administration, who has governed, perverted, and destroyed it. The person to whom I allude is Earl Russell; and I may say that the honour of England in his hands has not shone forth with the brightness that I could have wished. Let us go, Sir, from China to Japan—though that is not far. But if I go farther, if I go to Poland, then to Denmark, and lastly to America, in every case I find that the honour, the name of England, has been tarnished by what has taken place. Sir, I have read the despatches on this matter, and the feeling predominant in my mind was that of dire humiliation. I felt that the honour of England has not been upheld as it ought to have been, and that the strict neutrality which the noble Lord the First Minister professes, and professes honestly, I am sure, has not been maintained. Why, Sir, the tone used was, in the first place, like the scream of a cockatoo or the scolding of an angry woman. The end was most unequal to the beginning; the words were big, but the deeds were the least possible. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary seemed frightened by the bluster of the Federal Government, and the moment Mr. Adams threatened war he crouched before the menace, and England seemed to recede from her position among the nations. That being the case, Sir, I feel that I have a right to inquire what
  1918
  is the neutrality which the noble Lord professes, and what is the state of the two peoples between whom we profess to be neutral? Now, first and foremost, we may supply contraband of war, and we have supplied it to both sides. There is no difference whatever there. The next thing that we have supplied—that is, the people who have gone—is the men. They have gone in hundreds and thousands from this country to America and enlisted as soldiers to fight her battles. A very small number of our men have gone and enlisted in the navy of the Confederate States, and then comes Mr. Adams and says "Aye, but these sailors of yours have chased from the face of the waters American commerce." If they have done so, I, Sir, am very glad. But where is the difference between them and the men who have enlisted in the service of the Federals? They have enlisted as military men, and where peace and happiness reigned before they have been made the instruments of spreading a wide and desperate desolation. The whole proceedings of this American war are a blot upon human nature. And when I am told that I should have sympathy for the Northern States of America, I turn in absolute disgust from their hypocrisy. If there is a sink of political iniquity it is at Washington. They are corrupt, they are base, they are cowardly, and they are cruel. ["Oh!"] You say "Oh;" but I want to know what they have said of England. If I have said anything worse of them than they have said of us I am mistaken. I do not think that the history of mankind displays a spectacle more deplorable and debasing. Sir, there are two things which our law distinctly prohibits—and the Attorney General can correct me if I am wrong. The first of those two things is the supplying of ships, armed and equipped, to a State at war with another State with which we are in friendship. This is said to have been done in this country with respect to the Confederate States; and that matter is now sub judice. The Attorney General, with all his acumen and all his power of persuasion, has not been able to convince a jury of his countrymen that our law has been broken by the Confederate States of America. The next thing is the enlisting of men here to fight in the cause of the Federals; and that is what is now being done in Ireland. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant last year acknowledged that the Government of Ire-

  1919
  land was perfectly aware of what was going on in Ireland at that time; and at this present moment we see it broadly stated in The Times newspaper that the same thing is going on now. Therefore, coming from my first statement to my last, I ask whether, as you have determined to remonstrate with the Confederate States on mere suspicion—for you have carried it no further—are you prepared now, on mere suspicion, to remonstrate with the Federal States on their enlistment of men in Ireland for the purposes of the war in America? The question is clear, definite, understandable. I have perfect faith in the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and that he will give me a categorical answer; and if he determines not to make that remonstrance, I hope he will be able to make it clear to the House that he has a good reason for that abstinence on his part. I myself feel that on this occasion the honour of England is at stake; that we have, under the threat—for it is a threat—of a war with America, determined as far as we can to deprive the Confederate States of any assistance they can derive from this country. Into the real feelings of the noble Lord I will not inquire. I rather guess I know them. I fancy he is not a Federal, but of that I do not ask him to give any enunciation. All I presume to do is to ask him to be that strictly neutral person which he says he intends to be, and that he will stand up against any and every Power, I do not care what or where that Power may be, that would endeavour to coerce him to be a party to that Irish kind of neutrality which is all on one side. The question I have to ask is this:—"As the Solicitor General has stated that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to remonstrate with the Government of the Confederate States upon their employment of agents for illegal purposes," and as the First Lord of the Treasury has declared that the Government of Her Majesty desired to maintain the strictest neutrality between the Confederate and Federal States, Is it intended to remonstrate with the Government of the Federal States upon the employment by them of agents in Ireland for the purpose of enlisting as soldiers the subjects of Her Majesty?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, my hon. and learned Friend has been kind enough to pay me some compliments; but I beg to say I can accept of no one's compliments at the expense of a Colleague.
  1920
  My hon. and learned Friend ought to know that it is vain to endeavour to single out one Member of a Cabinet, to hold him up to public obloquy, and to make amends for that by compliments and praise to the Government at large. My noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office is, no doubt, the organ of the Government in all its communications, and with regard to all its relations, with foreign Powers; but my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office takes no steps except in concert with his Colleagues; and I must declare to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has endeavoured to separate me from my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office, that I am equally responsible with him for every step he has taken in the conduct of every negotiation which seems, unhappily, to have excited feelings of humiliation in the mind of my hon. and learned Friend—a feeling which I believe is not shared by the people of this country—a feeling which I am confident will not be shared by any man of impartial mind who shall look with attention to the different steps which have been taken in all those great transactions to which allusion has been made. Sir, once for all, I beg distinctly and positively to state, that those who attempt to separate my noble Friend from his Colleagues will fail in their endeavours, and betray an ignorance of the principles and practice of the Governments of this country. Be it henceforth known—and I beg my declaration may be recorded and borne in mind—that we are all, and I am especially, equally responsible with my noble Friend for every step he has taken in this matter. Now, Sir, we have declared our intention to observe strict neutrality in the contest unfortunately being carried on in America, and I maintain we have kept our word and acted on our declaration. The hon. and learned Gentleman contends that we have dealt a different measure of justice to one side from that we have dealt to the other. Well, it should be remembered that the two sides stand, unfortunately for one of them, in a very different position in regard to the assistance which they may derive from this or any other quarter. The Federals command the sea; all their ports are open; they can go to Birmingham, Liege, or any other place where arms and ammunition are manufactured; they may buy what articles they like, ship, and safely convey them to their own ports. They have the command of the markets of Eu-

  1921
  rope, for the purpose of supplying their armies with anything and everything they may want to carry on the war. The Confederates, on the other hand, have not these advantages. They are shut out from the sea; they can only get supplies by blockade runners, many of which are taken, and few, comparatively, escape. Therefore, the conditions of the two parties are not equal under an equal law of neutrality in regard to both. It is true that there is also a great difference between the obtaining ships from a neutral country, and the obtaining of arms and ammunition. I do not dispute that in point of principle, and setting aside our own municipal law, these two things stand on an equal footing by international law and obligation. But if a belligerent goes to a neutral country and buys arms, cannon, and ammunition wherewith to arm large armies, he derives from that neutral a greater assistance towards deciding the war than perhaps one, two, or more cruisers can have on the ultimate fate of the war, although they may effect great injury to individuals. But we have a municipal law which overrides, in some respects, international relations, and we are bound by our own law to prevent certain things being done in this country for the benefit of one belligerent against another. We are bound, for example, not to permit enlistments and organization of men, and also to prevent the equipment and armament of ships. The one is an easy thing to prevent. The armament and equipment of a ship is a notoriety. A ship is a tangible thing; you can see with your eyes the progress made in its construction and equipment; you can interfere at the proper moment, and lay your hand on it to prevent a breach of the law being committed. But with regard to the enlistment of men, you have not the same means. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that great enlistments of men have been made in Ireland for the Federals. That may be so or not, but in order to punish those who have been guilty of that breach of our laws, you must have proof—proof which is not easily obtained. I dare say, speaking only from common report, it is very likely there are in Ireland agents acting under the orders of the Federal Government to induce fighting men to go and enlist in the armies of the Federals; but they are much too wise and cunning to make their enlistments in Ireland. There is, we know, so great a difference between
  1922
  the wages of labour in the United States and the wages of labour in Ireland, that in order to induce men to go it is sufficient to tell them, "Come as labourers. There is this railway and that railway, this work and that work and instead of 1s. or 1s. 6d. you will get 10 s. a day." They are, I say, much too wise to talk of enlistment in Ireland. They induce the people to go to find a better market for their labour, and when these men land at New York there are people there to offer them a hundred dollars, induce them to enlist in some Ohio regiment or another, and become soldiers, with the chance of plunder, and God knows what besides. I say, therefore, that though the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman may be substantially true, that inducements are held out in Ireland to people to go to the United States, with the intention that when they get there they shall be inveigled into the army, yet to found any legal prosecution on these transactions you must have proof, which we are, as yet, unable to get. But we have remonstrated Generally on this subject, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will look into the papers which were laid before Parliament last year, he will see that representations have been made to the United States' Government on the reports and rumours which reached Her Majesty's Government on the subject. There was lately a transaction which engaged the serious attention of the Government—the Kearsage, a Federal cruiser, while in the harbour of Cork, was accused of having enlisted a number of men to serve in that vessel. When inquiry was made on the subject, the United States' Consul at Cork declared that there was no truth in the charge. Representations were then made to Mr. Adams; the men were returned to the shore, and if sufficient proof could have been afforded to identify those connected with that transaction, no doubt a prosecution would have been instituted. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General reminds me that, with regard to some who were proved to have been accessories and victims of that inveiglement, there is a prosecution now going on. If that prosecution succeeds, and you can prove that the municipal law of the country has been violated, of course representations will be made against the conduct of those officers, whether naval or consular, by whom that law was violated. I can only say that, in order to found a distinct and formal remonstrance to the United States, you must

  1923
  have proofs, and those proofs are difficult to obtain. But we have remonstrated with the United States' Government, as will appear from the papers which were last year laid on the table of this House. If it can be shown that there are grounds to entitle us to make remonstrances, be sure that my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office will be as ready as I or any of our Colleagues to vindicate the honour and the laws of the country by adequate representations to the Government to whom the infraction of our laws is imputed.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Sir, I think that this question ought not to be passed by without any facts bearing upon it, which may be within the knowledge of any Member of the House, being stated. The matter is too important, and touches too nearly the honour of the country to be lightly treated. I believe that many persons have witnessed transactions with shame, which, if known to us, and not pressed upon the Government, would cover us with some of the disgrace which must attach to them. I disclaim any intention to diverge into a discussion upon American affairs. I have always entertained, in common with others, my opinion as to the probable result of the American contest, and, in common with others, I have witnessed with the utmost regret the savage character which the war in America has assumed upon the Federal side. We have seen horrors which have been denounced in European wars, not only permitted but encouraged by the Federal Government. Large regions have been laid waste by letting loose the flood of mighty rivers, and harbours, which the beneficence of Providence bestowed on the country, have been attempted to be destroyed by barbarous means; wholesale peculation and robbery have been perpetrated under the form of war by Generals of the Federal States, and worse horrors than I believe have ever in the present century disgraced European armies have been perpetrated under the eyes of the Federal Government, and yet remain unpunished. These things are notorious as the proceedings of a Government which seems anxious to rival one despotic and irresponsible Power in Europe in its contempt for the public opinion of mankind, as well as in its disregard of the liberties of those who are unhappily under its control. Such proceedings must be denounced by every one who values freedom and constitutional rights. Now, whilst holding these views we have not pressed
  1924
  our opinions upon the House. I will venture to say that if such conduct had been proved against an European Power as is patent and known to the world with regard to the Federal army, this House would not have been so long silent. But when it is notorious that enlistment has taken place for the Northern army in Ireland—that British subjects have been entrapped into being instruments of cruelty and savagery, I think it is time for us to demand that a remonstrance should be made by Her Majesty's Government, and that our remonstrance should not be confined to the weaker side. It is only two years since an officer of the British navy told me that a large bounty had been offered to his men to enlist in the Federal navy—that American agents actually offered on board of a Queen's ship in a British port £10 to be paid in this country, and £15 on the arrival of each man at America. Now these matters must be known to Her Majesty's Government. And when on mere suspicions we are disposed to address a remonstrance to the Confederate Government, I think that some urgent remonstrance ought to be addressed to the Federal Government upon this subject. It must be known to the Admiralty how such matters are going on. I trust that we shall not disgrace ourselves by limiting our remonstrances to the weak, and shrinking from the vindication of the International Law in regard to those who have proved themselves utterly unworthy of being classed amongst civilized Powers.
  MR. BRIGHT: I rise, Sir, not for the purpose of continuing the discussion, nor to refer to what has been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down, but to make one or two remarks with regard to the effect of what has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Roebuck). There is a charming simplicity in the character of the hon. and learned Gentleman who now appeals to the House and to the noble Lord so fervidly for the practice of impartiality as between the North and the South. But I have never heard, I think, on the floor of this House from any speaker language so unworthy of a Member of the House when speaking of a foreign Government—and in this case they are foreign only in a certain sense, for they are after all but another English nation—growing upon the other side of the Atlantic, and with none of those differences which in ordinary cases would entitle them to be called foreigners. The

  1925
  hon. and learned Gentleman has put a question to the noble Lord with regard to Ireland. If he will recollect what took place last year he will remember that the noble Lord, speaking on the Motion brought forward by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire), approved very much of the emigration of a large number of people from Ireland to America. In fact, it is said that the noble Lord at the head of the Government generously contributed to assist not a few poor persons on his own estates to leave Ireland and cross the Atlantic. The right hon. Gentleman the chief Secretary for Ireland last year—and, indeed, three or four nights ago—made speeches in which he expressed the same sentiments and approved very much of the emigration now going on. He showed, I think, that about 60,000 men crossed the Atlantic from Ireland in the course of last year. The noble Lord now tells us that the wages in Ireland are from 1s. to 1s. 6d. per day. That, I believe, is not quite correct. I have it on very good authority—from Irish Gentlemen near me—that the average wage of labouring men in the south and west of Ireland will not average more than from 10 d. to 1s. per day. Well, if that be so, how dare the hon. and learned Gentleman with his logical miud—how dare he assume that a foreign Government is breaking international law and breaking our municipal law to induce Irishmen to emigrate to America, when he must know perfectly well that there are already overwhelming attractions, apart from the question of war, which would take Irishmen to America—and when he knows further that the bounty for enlistment is not, as the noble Lord said, 100 dollars, but very much nearer £100? The only marvel is that any Irishman who is not the owner of land, or a man of some capital, should remain in that blighted and unhappy country. Now, I happen to know the gentleman who fills the office of Consul for the United States at Liverpool, Mr. Dudley. Mr. Dudley told me, many months ago, that since the war began, every day, he believed, that his office had been open he has had to answer questions of men—Englishmen as well as Irishmen—who came to him to ask him to help them over the Atlantic that they might enlist in the Northern army. I believe the Consul at Manchester could give the same information, and that the Consuls in other parts of the country could say the same thing. There can be no object in the
  1926
  American Government employing persona to enlist Irishmen or to persuade them to go. The motives which impel them to go are so powerful that the American Government would show absolute stupidity if it attempted to do that which the hon. and learned Gentleman charges upon it. This, I think, is not at all unlikely to have been done. I think that when £100 is given for a recruit in the United States some sharp fellow may have found that he could afford to carry Irishmen or Englishmen over there for nothing in order that he might receive handsome remuneration for taking them there if the men chose to enlist and receive the bounty. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself, not very long ago, travelled through foreign countries, it is said, on commercial speculations. [Mr. ROEBUCK: It is not true.] Then I retract it if it be not true. But if it be not true, any American as sharp as the hon. and learned Gentleman would easily find out that he might make £10 or £20 for each passenger he took from Ireland to America, provided that when they got there they can be induced to enlist in the Northern army. I undertake to say that the opinion of the House, and of those who heard the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, will not be that he is a very fair critic of what takes place in the United States. More than that—I have no call whatever—no feeling, no inclination—to defend the character of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office—but turning back to the events of last Session, and the part which the hon. and learned Gentleman took on the floor of this House, I undertake to say there does not exist to my knowledge a Minister, or statesman who has occupied the position of a Minister, who has done so much to humiliate this country and the House as the hon. and learned Gentleman did last year after he returned from his expedition to Paris.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: I think that the hon. Member for Birmingham has mistaken the exact nature of the issue raised by my hon. and learned Friend. Nobody disputed that no case of enlistment has been proved against the Federal Government in the Courts of the Law. There is, however, a prosecution going on upon the subject, and strong surmises are entertained, and have reached that point that the Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland last year stated to the House as an undoubted fact, that enlistments for the Federal army were going on in that coun-

  1927
  try. Now, what is the complaint of my hon. and learned Friend—a complaint in which I am disposed to join? It is, that the Government proceeded to remoustrate with the Confederates on pure surmise, while, with regard to the Federals, there being surmises at least as strong, they refuse to take a similar course. Remember both sides are in precisely the same case. Both sides have been presented to us for alleged breaches of the laws of neutrality; but the charges have never been proved against either. There are strong features of notoriety against both; but Her Majesty's Government have remonstrated in the one case, but have refused to remonstrate in the other. There is another point to which I wish to call the attention of the Government. I have lately seen in the news from America a statement that agents from the Washington Government are about to be sent over to England and Ireland to induce persons to emigrate to the Northern States. Of course the statement is, that British subjects are only induced to emigrate in order to obtain industrial employment in that country. But these agents induce men to go over to America, and when they get there they are enlisted. As the noble Lord at the head of the Government says, they go over as peaceful emigrants, and become soldiers when they get there. What do the Confederates do? Why, they ask also to be allowed to obtain peaceful ships which shall leave our harbours in that condition, and which, directly they get out of our jurisdiction, become vessels of war. The case is precisely the same in both cases—the raw material, so to speak, of the soldier or the vessel of war, is bought in this country, but it is not converted into a belligerent implement until out of our jurisdiction. I confess it seems to me that the offence—if offence it be—is exactly the same in both cases; and it is unjust to charge one party with a desire to elude the law when you do not make the same charge against the other. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson), expressed some apprehension that we should disgrace ourselves if, after having evaded so many wars with strong Powers, we should plunge ourselves into a war with the Confederate States in their present difficulties. But I confess I am under no such apprehension. My own impression is, that the Confederate States, even in their present condition of comparative adversity, are
  1928
  very much above the war point of Her Majesty's Government, and that, therefore, it is with the greatest equanimity that I hear that Her Majesty's Government intend to remonstrate. In fact, I believe there is no greater proof that they consider the Confederate States to be among those too strong to go to war with, than the fact that Her Majesty's Government intend to remonstrate with them. There is not a strong Power in the world Her Majesty's Government have not remonstrated with, and I have no doubt they will go on remonstrating to the end of the chapter; but I have never discovered that these remonstrances have produced the slightest injury to those to whom they were addressed. If, therefore, it is any satisfaction to the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to whom remonstrating appears to convey a kind of balm, I am sure no one can have any objection to such harmless indulgences, and I trust Her Majesty's Government will go on remonstrating so long as they find the slightest pleasure in that agreeable occupation.
  MR. KINGLAKE: I rise, Sir, to endeavour to avert a portion of the evil consequences which may be occasioned by the language which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield has thought fit to apply to the Government of Washington. He has thought it fit and becoming to apply the terms"base," "cowardly," and "corrupt," to that Government; and I wish to state my opinion, that the charges of the hon. and learned Gentleman do not represent the opinions of this House; nor do they represent the opinions of any party, or any fraction of a party in this House; they represent only that which no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman has n great respect for—namely, the opinions of himself. I think, however, we shall be able to explain to the people of America, if they are rendered indignant by reading such language, what manner of man it is who has thought fit to use insolent language of this description. They may say and imagine from seeing the kind of way he has of expressing himself, and the attention this House is sometimes disposed to give to him, that he is a kind of oracle in this House. I quite agree he so far performs the part of an oracle in this House that he does speak with a kind of mystery and a degree of precision which we attribute to the oracles of old. But I have to remind him that there is another quality required in an oracle, and that is, that the oracle should be an oracle whom somebody

  1929
  consults, Now, I must say that I have been some years in this House, but I never heard of any party, or fraction of a party, or any group of men who ever went to consult that oracle. We may also ask the people of America, if they are rendered indignant at the hon. and learned Gentleman's language, to remember that the same speaker at the same moment applied to Earl Russell similar language—describing that noble Earl's language as the "screamings of a cockatoo," and his anger that of a "scolding woman." These were the images by which the hon. and learned Gentleman has thought fit to convey his impressions of Earl Russell; and I think we may express our hope that the American people will be as indifferent to the language which the hon. and learned Gentleman has applied to the Government of Washington as I am well assured Earl Russell will be when he hears he has been vilipended by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. CAIRD: I wish to supply some of the facts which were promised, but which were unaccountably omitted by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson). I also, like the hon. and gallant Gentleman, have been in America, and from what I saw in the Western and in many parts of the Northern States, I believe that there never was a people so determined and so ready to submit to any sacrifice in the prosecution of a war which they at all events believed to he a just and a right one. It is a mistake to suppose that the Irish who are going in such numbers to America are fond of the war. For example, in Chicago, the population is one-third Americans, one-third Germans, and one-third Irish, and the latter are the most reluctant to go to war. Of 6,000 men supplied by Chicago to the Illinois army, 3,500 or 60 per cent were Americans, 1,700 or 30 per cent were Germans, and only 800 or 10 per cent were Irish. The inducements for emigration, owing to the high state of the labour market in America, are sufficient reasons for such vast numbers of Irish emigrating. I hold in my hand an advertisement published in an American newspaper so late as the 19th of February last, from a line forming in Wisconsin, offering about 7s. per day for railway labourers. It may be said that they would be paid in greenbacks; but the railway company guarantee that they shall receive every necessary
  1930
  that they require for 12 s. a week; so that they will make a clear profit of 30 s. a week. Is it, therefore, surprizing that men earning only about 6s. or 7s. per week should emigrate to a country where they can earn 42 s. per week? And as to the objection that the payment is in greenbacks, it must be remembered that greenbacks in that country procure every necessary a man requires there. From ignorance of the vast inducements that exist in America, and which are likely to continue, to favour emigration, we wrongly attribute it to a breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act. In the valley of the Mississippi there is a tract of land five times the extent of England, far more fertile than this country, and underlaid with coal and iron. It is capable of absorbing between four and five millions of people more, and of keeping in abundance seventy millions. Is it, therefore, to be wondered at that such prospects as these draw large numbers of persons from our shores? There is, in my opinion, a silent revolution beginning in the labour market, which will effectually settle what has often come before this House owing to the redundancy of our population—namely, the laws of settlement and removal, and which will, no doubt, be settled in a way we who are the employers of labour do not desire to see them settled.

QUARTERMASTER ACRES—THE NORTH TIPPERARY MILITIA.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTcalled the attention of the House to the circumstances attending the dismissal of Quartermaster Acres from the North Tipperary Militia relative to some missing stores. Mr. Acres complained that he had not had a fair hearing. Charges were made against him, and witnesses were called in support of them, but he was not permitted to enter into any defence, or call rebutting evidence. The hon. Member moved for a copy of the Correspondence that had passed between the authorities upon the subject.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that when Quartermaster Acres was dismissed from the Tipperary Militia, the question came before the colonel of the regiment, and was subsequently submitted to the lord lieutenant of the county, and the result was that the dismissal of the quartermaster was judged to be justified by the circumstances, He hoped the House would not think it

  1931
  desirable that the papers should be produced.

THE POLICE IN THE DOCKYARDS.
  QUESTION.
  MAJOR KNOXsaid, he understood that large numbers of the Metropolitan Police were engaged in the Dockyards, and he wished to know, If the Assistant Commissioners of Police in London received extra pay for the additional duty thus cast upon them?

  M. MAZZINI AND THE GRECO CONSPIRACY.—QUESTION.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he desired to make an inquiry on a matter of great importance to the honour of this country. He could perfectly understand any hon. Member occupying a high and distinguished position in Her Majesty's Government treating with contempt any scurrilous abuse of him that might appear in newspapers of this or any other country; but when a grave charge had been made against the honour of England, or the honour of Her Majesty's Government, by a high official of a friendly nation, it could not be supposed that a communication had not been instantly made to the Government of that nation, that the assertion had not been at once met by an official contradiction, and that proof of a convincing nature as to the falsity of the charge had not accompanied the communication. He therefore could not believe for one moment but that communications had passed between the Government of the Queen and the Government of the Emperor of the French as to the statement made on the occasion of the late State trials in France by the Procureur Général. In hip opinion, no charge so repugnant to the feelings of the English nation could be brought against any member of our community as that an Englishman—he cared not of what political opinions—had directly or indirectly, by word or deed, by writing or expression, instigated or promoted assassination. He was sure Her Majesty's Government had availed themselves of the opportunity afforded them by the public statement to which he had referred to vindicate the honour of the country, and to show that the assertion made by the Procureur General was utterly and entirely devoid of all truth. He hoped Her Majesty's Government had gone even further, and had shown that there could not have been any
  1932
  possible ground for a suspicion that the charge had any foundation, and that they had likewise assured the French Government that no accusation could be more abhorrent to and more worthy of the contempt of all Englishmen, than that any one of them could, directly or indirectly, be guilty of employing people to become assassins. He wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any Correspondence had passed between Her Majesty's Government and that of the Emperor of the French with reference to the statement made on the occasion of the late trials in Paris by the Procureur Général; and whether there was any objection to lay such Correspondence (if any) upon the table?
  MR. LAYARD: The hon. Baronet says it is necessary that the honour of the country should be vindicated in a matter of this nature. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I think that the dignified way of vindicating the honour of this country in a matter of the kind is to treat such an accusation against a Member of this House and of the Government, coming from the public prosecutor, with the contempt it deserves. I am sure there is no man in England, and no man in France acquainted with England—and there is no one better acquainted with her than the exalted personage who now reigns in France—who is not convinced that the charge made against his hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) must of itself be utterly false. It would be unworthy of Her Majesty's Government to take notice of such a charge, and the course we have pursued is to take no notice of it. Therefore no communication has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the Emperor of the French, nor is intended to be made, on the subject.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALK: Has any communication on the subject been made by the French Government to the English Government?
  MR. LAYARD: None whatever.
  MR. HENNESSYacquiesced in the assertion just made by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that no gentleman in this country, no Member of the Government, and no Member of that House, would be guilty of the charge made against a certain person by the Procureur General; but as the doctrines of M. Mazzini had been made the subject of comment in Parliament on more than one occasion, he thought the House might pause to inquire

  1933
  what really was the policy of M. Mazzini on the subject of assassination, and whether that policy had been promulgated in England. He held in his hand a work published by Holyoake and Co., of Fleet Street, entitled, Mazzini's Letters to Daniel Manin. The latter was President of the Republic of Venetia in 1848, and in a letter which had been published in The Times, he had accused the Mazzini party of encouraging assassination. In a letter, entitled On the Theory of the Dagger, Mazzini, replying to him, said—
  "And as if to substantiate beforehand such an accusation, and allow others to suppose a powerful secret organization for murder to exist—you speak repeatedly of the courage needed to write your letter. Courage! You well knew that by declaiming against the dagger you will obtain, without the smallest shadow of risk, the name of the most moral among all the leaders of Italy, from all those who, secure beneath the shelter of their national flag, secure in the exercise of their rights, secure in a well organized national justice, coldly judge the irregular and convulsive efforts of an uneducated and oppressed people, who have no hope left save in a bloody struggle, and no tribunal to establish the balance of justice between them and those who tyrannize over them."
  Again, he observed—
  "If your oppressors have disarmed you, create arms to combat them; make weapons of the iron of your crosses, the nails of your workshops, the stones of your streets, the daggers you can shape from your workmen's files. Snatch by artifice and by surprise those arms by which the foreigner takes from you your honour, your property, your rights, and your life. From the dagger of the Vespers, to the stone of Balilla and the knife of Palafox, blessed be in your hands every weapon that can destroy the enemy and set you free. This language is mine, and it should be yours. The weapon that slew Mincovich in your arsenal initiated that insurrection of which you accepted the direction in Venice. It was a weapon of irregular warfare, like that which three months before the Republic destroyed the Minister Rossi in Rome. But if, by the theory of the dagger, you mean the language of those who would say to our fellow-citizens 'Strike—not to initiate the insurrection, but merely to wound; and, because you cannot or will not arise, strike in the dark isolated individuals whose life or death forms no obstacle to the salvation of their country; substitute the revenge which degrades for the conspiracy which emancipates; make of yourselves a tribunal before you are even citizens, and without giving your victims time for repentance or exculpation.' Who utters such language—who has disseminated in Italy this atrocious theory? It is your duty to declare this, or retract the accusation."
  He closed another paragraph in these words—
  "In the culpable indifference of governmental Europe to an idea of country and an immense aspiration nourished by a people, and forcibly restrained for more than half' a century—in this
  1934
  state of things is the true source of the theory of the dagger."
  Then he went on to give his idea of the true source of the theory of the dagger—
  "The Government of France, by shutting up the path of progress in Rome—that the Protestant English Government, by declaring in its despatches its desire for the return of the Pope-that all the European Governments, by forbidding Italy to become a nation—are responsible before God and man for the daggers that glitter amid the darkness in our land."
  Then he went on to say—
  "To the men who are suffering under the knife of the executioner, 'Use not the knife in your turn,' is the same thing as to say to a man dying in an atmosphere of pestilence, 'Let your blood flow calmly through your veins—cure yourself.' It is a similar error to that of the worthy men who would refrain from initiating Republican institutions until those born and educated under a Monarchical despotism have acquired the virtues of Republicans."
  Then he dwelt on the fact of the dagger—
  "The fact of the dagger will disappear whenever Italy shall have a life of her own, her rights recognized, and justice done to her."
  A little further he went on to say—
  "I abhor the shedding of a single drop of blood when not absolutely necessary to the triumph or consecration of a holy principle. There are exceptional moments in the life and history of nations, not to be judged by the normal rules of human justice, and in which the actors can only receive inspiration from their conscience and from God."
  This was the last passage he would quote—
  "Sacred in the hand of Judith is the sword that took the life of Holofernes; sacred was the dagger which Harmodius encircled with roses; sacred was the dagger of Brutus; sacred the stiletto of the Sicilian who began the Vespers; sacred the arrow of Tell. Whenever justice is extinct, and a single tyrant cancels through terror, and denies the conscience of a people, and the God who willed them free—if a man, pure from hatred and every baser passion, arises, in the religion of country, and in the name of the eternal right incarnate within him, and says to him, 'Thou torturest millions of my brothers; thou withholdest from them that which God has decreed theirs; thou destroyest their bodies, and corruptest their souls; through thee my country dies a lingering death; thou art the keystone of an entire edifice of slavery, dishonour, and wrong; I overthrow that edifice by destroying thee;'—I recognize in that manifestation of tremendous equality between the tyrant of millions and a single individual the finger of God. Most men feel in their hearts as I do. I express it."
  Such was Mazzini's description of his own opinions, and certainly it was clear enough. The English public were indebted to a Minister of the Crown for a description of the character of Mazzini, which he would read to the House. A late Prime Minister of the King of Sardinia—Farini—

  1935
  had written a book entitled The Roman States, which had been translated by a Member of the present Cabinet, and in it was this passage—
  "For the sect of Mazzini, which incessantly rails at diplomatic finesse, has itself too its own artifices, its own political tricks, and this is one of them, to exasperate the temper of men, and communicate to them the impulse which desperation and the fear of punishment impart, in their phrase to compromise as many as possible, and then 'once done is well done;' but in our time there are few who are disposed to play desperate games, and the satellites of Mazzini, aware of this, threw themselves into the midst of a class habituated to faction, and make common cause with assassins."
  The English public were indebted to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer for that description of the character of Mazzini. That these were the real opinions of Mazzini had never been disavowed, and it was therefore with some surprise that the country had heard the speeches recently made by two Ministers of the Crown. One of them in that House almost praised Mazzini, and affirmed his belief that he had never countenanced assassination; and the other, in the other House, though he did not go so far, said that he had done nothing in this country which could lead the Government to believe that he entertained such principles. He (Mr. Hennessy) thought it was important to remember that this pamphlet was published in London just before the first attack on the Emperor of the French. He wished to divest what be had said from the least semblance of an attack on the hon. Member for Halifax, and still more anxious not to renew the unpleasant personal question which had occupied the House on a former evening. He felt convinced that the hon. Member was not only personally convinced of the accuracy of all he had stated; but, looking to the great effect which a man of Mazzini's genius must exercise upon those with whom he came in contact, he believed the hon. Member had been made his dupe in this instance.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think the observations and speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hennessy) would be considered by the public as adding to the dignity of the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Gentleman had brought forward a charge against an absent man, who, whatever his faults, was a man of high character, and against whom a charge had been made by a foreign Government, which the hon. and learned Member himself did not say that
  1936
  he believed to be well founded, and which in the opinion of men of all parties was not well founded. He believed it was the General opinion that Mazzini was not implicated in any plot for the purpose of assassinating the Emperor of the French, and that if there was any plot in the matter it was got up to implicate him. The effect of the hon. and learned Member's speech would be, that whenever there was a prosecution the fact of such a charge having been made would be quoted in the House of Commons, and it would be said that Mazzini was guilty, because, in the opinion of the hon. and learned Member, he was capable of assassination. It was not making a right use of that House, to read from a pamphlet published some years ago to found a charge against Mazzini, and from which it would be supposed that he countenanced the crime of assassination. If the hon. and learned Gentleman really believed Mazzini to be guilty, let him call upon the Government openly to prosecute him: if he did not, he ought not to make such charges out of a pamphlet written a long time ago, which might contain some foolish things which none of them would approve, but of which they could not judge unless they had the whole of it before them. He hoped that the licence of discussion enjoyed within those walls would not be made use of to help charges made by a foreign Government against any man, however enthusiastic or however mistaken he might be in some matters.
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, it did not lie in his mouth to defend M. Mazzini, much less to defend assassination, but he rose to say that he regretted to see the House of Commons made involuntarily to act a part in a gigantic hypocrisy. The hon. and learned Gentleman naturally detested Mazzini, because, in spite of his many faults and shortcomings, he more than any other man had kept alive in evil times the great idea of Italian unity. But the hon. and learned Gentleman, who came down to attack Mazzini, was himself the principal advocate of a movement which had relied more upon assassination than any other movement in the history of the world. The Polish movement, with which to a certain extent he sympathized, had disgraced itself by relying on assassination. General Mouravieff personally informed him on the 1st of January last that up to that time 804 persons in his district had been murdered by the insurrectionary Government—that, of course, had no reference to those who had

  1937
  been killed in skirmishes—and on the 4th of January General Berg told him, that in his district 940 persons had been murdered in the same way. He knew that the names of Mouravieff and Berg were justly unpopular in this country, but notwithstanding this he offered the personal word of these two men—men of high position in Europe—as to these facts, and he would place that in opposition to anything which might be brought forward on the other side. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman really dislike assassination, or was it merely all assassination except that in the good old cause in which Ravaillae and Balthasar Gerard acted?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I think the observations of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) ought not to pass altogether unnoticed. He has drawn the attention of the House away from the question before it, and the position which he has laid down is one which the House of Commons ought not to recognize. It is the right of the House of Commons, and it ought to be its duty when necessary, to observe on the conduct of absent men. It certainly is not necessary that M. Mazzini should be a Member of this House to give us a right to comment on his conduct. I thought that the remark made the other night by the Prime Minister went nearly to the root of all Parliamentary criticism, when he described comments made on a Minister of the Crown who happens to have a seat in the other House of Parliament as an attack upon an absent man. We are now advancing in that theory, and, according to the doctrine of the hon. Member for Bradford, there is not a foreign Potentate or a Foreign Minister whose conduct we can call in question—because he has not a seat in this House. But it is too absurd to notice, and it is not for that purpose I rose. What I want to call the attention of the House to is the real point under consideration. They seem to have forgotten the case which called upon my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) to make some observations. What did occur was this. Some nights ago, when this question was brought before the House, and the conduct of a gentleman, a Member of the Administration, was impugned for his supposed intimacy with M. Mazzini and his possible connection with assassins, that Gentleman, sitting next to the Prime Minister, rose, and announcing himself as a Minister of the Crown, and
  1938
  thereby giving due solemnity to any statement which he might make to the House, repudiated in most indignant language that he could be connected with assassins; and, avowing at the same time long intimacy and perfect friendship with Mazzini, also declared that M. Mazzini was incapable of such advice, conduct, or suggestion. Well, Sir, the affair at the moment terminated. But it certainly was in the power of my hon. and learned Friend to show to the House that the statement of this Minister of the Crown was unfounded. His statement was based upon an avowed intimacy of seventeen years, and the Minister of the Crown declared that M. Mazzini was one who would not tolerate principles which sanctioned assassination. My hon. and learned Friend was conscious that there were public documents which show that M. Mazzini, on political and philosophic principles, is not only the votary and advocate, but the great promoter of assassination. After the statement which my hon. and learned Friend made to the House the other night, I think he only does that which is due to the House when he vindicates that statement, and shows—as he has shown in a complete manner—that he was justified in the observations which he then made. And I am not at all surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Devonshire (Sir Lawrence Palk) should have addressed a question to the Government, which has been answered in so unsatisfactory a manner. These are grave matters. Here is a plot to assassinate a neighbouring Sovereign, who still, we believe, is an intimate ally of this country. A Member of the Government—a Minister of the Crown—who by his own admission is at least the friend of Mazzini, if not the correspondent of Greco, rises and gives a character to M. Mazzini which it is in the power, as has been shown to-night, of any one who obtains authentic information to prove has no foundation whatever in fact. He acknowledges his long intimacy with M. Mazzini, and he says at the same time, from his personal observation of M. Mazzini's character, he is convinced M. Mazzini is incapable of entertaining those odious opinions. Well! it speaks very little for the knowledge of human nature possessed by a Minister of the Crown, and very little for his power of observation, if, having for seventeen years been intimate with this well-known character, he believes him to be incapable of opinions which he

  1939
  has so elaborately and consistently vindicated, and on every occasion circulated and defended. I think these are very grave circumstances. We have the admission that a Member of the Administration is the intimate friend of one who professes this organized system of assassination, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Devonshire was perfectly justified in making the inquiry of Her Majesty's Government, and that the House, the country, and other countries, will deem the answer of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs most unsatisfactory.

  DENMARK AND GERMANY—INTEGRITY OF DANISH MONARCHY.—QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he did not rise to put the Question with reference to Denmark, of which he had given notice, but to complain of the bitter manner in which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) had put his Question with reference to America, which rendered it necessary for the noble Lord at the head of the Government to answer him at once, and precluded him, by the forms of the House, from answering any other Question. The hon. Member for Sheffield was never. remarkable for his courtesy or consideration for others; and he (Mr. Griffith) should, under the circumstances, take another opportunity of asking his Question?
  MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the detention of the Danish Iron-clad in the Clyde, Whether, following the course adopted at the commencement of the Italian War and at the outbreak of the American Rebellion, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to advise the issue of a Royal Proclamation in regard to the Danish war? There was no doubt, he said, of the fact of war. Whatever character might be applied to Federal execution in Holstein, the moment the German Powers invaded Schleswig a state of war ensued between Denmark and those Powers; and in order to set the matter entirely at rest the invasion of Jutland completed the position of war. What, then, was our condition? We were not a belligerent. Were we neutral? Until the proclamation issued we could scarcely be said to be neutral. We might be termed quasi-neutral. How could we ascertain our exact position? The best way was by listening to the utterances of
  1940
  the responsible Ministers of the Crown. Those utterances were neither feeble nor ambiguous. They were told by the noble Lord at the head of the Government that the invasion of Jutland was an aggravated outrage on the part of the great German Powers. Arguing from such language they could only come to the conclusion, upon the grounds of a pretty wide induction, that Her Majesty's Government were animated with the most pacific intentions, and had not the least possible intention of going to war in favour of Denmark. If that was the case, why was there delay in issuing a Proclamation such as was issued at the commencement of the Italian war and at the outbreak of the American hostilities? It had been suggested that Her Majesty's Government, having taken Denmark under their protection, and having in despatches made use of threatening language towards Germany, it would be rather a tame conclusion to allow all their ardour to evaporate in a Proclamation of neutrality. That argument betokened a sense of honourable shame and an appreciation of the ridiculous on the part of Her Majesty's Government. There were still more important considerations, however, which ought to outweigh such considerations as those. The country had become rather accustomed to this kind of conclusion of diplomatic negotiations. We had a negotiation with Russia conducted on a large scale. It was ushered in with pomp and circumstance. There was a good deal of threatening language, and consequences were denounced against Russia if she did not take the advice of the English Minister. The advice of the English Minister was neglected, and the only consequence was the writing a short, pithy, and sarcastic note. The country would not, therefore, be particularly shocked if the Dano-German negotiation ended in a Proclamation of neutrality. There were important reasons why the Proclamation should be issued. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary was rich and fruitful in expedients. When one expedient failed he was never at a loss for another. What guarantee was there that when he had utterly failed in the attempt to coerce and threaten Germany he might not turn round and threaten Denmark—and what security was there that the Channel Fleet, as to the destination of which the Secretary to the Admiralty knew nothing the other night, might not be sent to Copenhagen to assist our German allies. There might be grave reasons

  1941
  why such a Proclamation should not be issued. But it was right to inquire of Her Majesty's Government what those reasons were, in order to know what was the position of this country; whether we were neutral or not, and whether we intended or did not intend to remain neutral. It might be said that the war was not likely to last long. Every one must hope for the calamity of war to pass away; but there was no ground for expecting that this would not last the average duration of wars, or even be dragged out beyond the average. The noble Lord seemed to think the Conference would settle the matter. But till the Conference had taken place the matter could not be settled. As it had always been customary for the Government of this country to issue a Proclamation of neutrality, he hoped the Government would tell the House whether it was their intention to issue one in reference to this war; and, if not, upon what grounds they did not issue it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The hon. Member has proposed to the Government a question so unusual that I cannot think that he is serious in asking it. I rather suppose, from the tone of the speech which he has addressed to the House, that he desires to take the opportunity of making by anticipation some remarks which, no doubt, will be enlarged when the subject of Denmark comes to be discussed. At the same time, the respect we feel for the hon. Member makes us think it right to give some answer to the hon. Member, and the answer is simply this:—It has never been the custom to issue Proclamations of neutrality in any case in which Her Majesty's Government have felt that they have a deep interest involved, pending negotiations which may or may not have the result of calling for action on the part of Her Majesty's Government. In this case, as the House is aware, questions to which Her Majesty's Government is a party by treaty are, or may be, involved in negotiations pending; and Her Majesty's Government, with a deep solicitude, are watching the course of events, and using their utmost exertions to promote that issue which is for the general interest of Europe, Denmark, and this country. Under these circumstances, it is absolutely necessary that Her Majesty's Government should reserve to themselves the power of taking any course which the honour of Great Britain and Europe may require. Therefore, to issue
  1942
  a Proclamation of neutrality, which, is a declaration that you will remain neutral during the course of a war, whatever eventualities that war may involve, would be a most undignified and inconsistent course.
  Motion agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  NAVY ESTIMATES considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Re-committed Resolution [reported 11th March] read, as follows:—
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,275,316, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Wages to Artificers, Labourers, and others employed in Her Majesty's Naval Establishments at Home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865."
  MR. STANSFELD: Mr. Massey—Before I address myself to the Vote now before the Committee, I would ask leave to say one or two words with reference to the unfortunate, I may almost call it the absurd, contretemps of the other evening. If anybody is to blame for it it is myself. It is perfectly true that I rose to address you before you put the Vote, and I believe I did address you; but you could not know that remarks would be made from this bench except in reply, and it was my fault that I did not succeed in arresting your attention. My noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty had nothing whatever to do with the incident.
  Sir, it now becomes my duty to ask the Committee to agree to a very considerable increase in the labour Vote. This is a Vote which has always, and in my opinion rightly, been jealously watched by this House and by the country, because it supplies the Government with a means of employing a vast mass of labour, and it is a fair question to consider whether it is the most profitable and economical method for the Government to employ that labour itself or to purchase the results of labour employed in private yards. We ask for a considerable increase in this labour Vote, and I think the Committee are entitled to expect on the one hand a satisfactory explanation of the reasons which make the additional demand necessary, and on the other hand how we propose to employ it. To make this matter clear I must ask leave to go back for a few moments to the first Vote, the Vote for Men, because it is in the relation between these Votes and in their altered proportions, that consists

  1943
  what I would venture to call the policy of these Estimates. We have taken a Vote to cover the number of men actually borne, and the number which experience has proved to be sufficient for the actual requirements of the ordinary service. Now let me ask the Committee to consider the question somewhat in the order of reasoning in which it has been considered in point of fact by the Board of Admiralty. Let us go back to the Vote for Men as a kind of starting point; and, desirous as we are not only to maintain but to increase the real efficiency of our navy, let me put this question to the Committee as it was put to the Board of Admiralty—in what direction, within reasonable limits, should our extensions proceed? Shall they tend to an increase of men, or to the rapid construction and completion of our ships of war? Now, in the first place, before we come to the question of the construction of new vessels, I must say a few words on the subject of the repairs of our ordinary cruising squadrons—because here is a source of expense which is simply inevitable if you would deal fairly with the Committee and the naval service of the year. My noble Friend has explained to the Committee that, as it happens, there are more ships coming home to be paid off, and therefore to be refitted and repaired, than was the case in the year 1863–4. My noble Friend has also explained the fact that repairs are becoming in almost every case more extensive and more costly than in former years. The vessels of which our ordinary cruising squadrons consist are mostly screw wooden vessels. We have not lately been building vessels of that class. These vessels are becoming older year by year, their extensive and complicated machinery is becoming worn, their boilers have frequently to be taken out and to be replaced by new ones:—and thus it comes to pass that the average cost of the repairs of an ordinary cruiser is necessarily more in the coming, than it has been in recent financial years. Besides this, as my noble Friend has also explained to the Committee, there is hardly a case of repairs in these days which is to be considered as a case of repairs simply. We pay more attention to the comfort and health of our crews, and our notions of internal ship architecture progress so rapidly, that there is hardly a case of repairs which does not involve some improvement in the construction and fitting up of the ships we are repairing.
  1944
  The Committee, therefore, may take it for granted, not only that there are more vessels to repair, but that the average cost of those repairs is, for these reasons, necessarily and inevitably increased.
  But there is another reason which I specially desire to bring before the attention of the Committee. In the course of the vacation I made it my business to visit and spend some time in the various dockyards under the management of the Board of Admiralty. I was specially commissioned to revise and complete instructions for a system of our dockyard accounts; and besides that I went on a kind of self-imposed roving commission to inquire into all matters that might arise, and which I might think to be of interest, more especially as I found myself embarked in the part management of what I may term a great business, of which I happened to be at the time as ignorant as it was possible for a man to be. I now desire to communicate to the Committee what were the impressions of a new mind upon these matters. Nothing struck me in the management of the dockyards more than the frequency with which what was called the Controller's programme was, apparently unavoidably, interrupted and interfered with. The Committee are aware that the labour Vote is based on the Controller's programme. The Controller intimates to the Board of Admiralty the nature and amount of the work in the dockyards in the forthcoming year, and he makes demands in reference to labour and the wages which are to be paid for that labour. Well, Sir, I do not know whether it be because the amount of the Vote is so large, or because sometimes one does not like to look things that are not altogether pleasant, in the face, but it seems to have frequently happened that the Controller's programme has not exhaustively anticipated the work which ought to have been in our calculation, and provided for in the Estimates for the dockyards; and so it has come to pass that, when we had in the dockyards a certain force of men employed in the construction of ships of war which we were desirous should be proceeded with, some sudden emergency has arisen, some repair of a ship has suddenly become absolutely essential, and we have had to take off some portion of the men employed in building operations in order that something else necessary to be done should not be neglected. I think that every person acquainted with business will be satisfied

  1945
  of this—that nothing can be worse economy than not to realize the amount required for labour in the labour Vote; it is not economy not to look this matter in the face, and not to make provision for that which you ought to know is necessary for the service of the year. This is one reason why I submit to the Committee that it is absolutely essential, unless we were to resort to an expedient which I am sure the Committee would not approve—I mean that of meeting an excess on the labour Vote by a possible surplus on other Votes—if we are not to resort to that expedient, it is my duty to say to the Committee, that it is essential and inevitable that we should spend more in the coming year in the ordinary repairs of ships than was estimated for in the last financial year. The real efficiency of the navy, the Committee will understand, is to be tested by the expansive power of our force in case of any real or sudden emergency. It is a question which the Admiralty has had under consideration, whether that real efficiency is to be promoted by asking for a Vote for more men than are actually borne, and found to be sufficient, for the requirements of the time, or by spending more money in the rapid construction and completion of the most powerful and the most modern of our armour-plated ships. Now, let me ask for a moment what is our position with regard to men, according to the explanation given by my noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty? We have taken a Vote for numbers actually borne, and which have proved more than sufficient, for they left an ample margin for reserves to commission our ships in an unprecedentedly short time; indeed, in a shorter time than was necessary to put the stores on board, and get the ship ready for sea. And if you look to the quality of the crews, whether you look to the number of continuous service men, whether you look to the number of seamen, gunners, and the men trained in gunnery, I think I may safely say there never was a time in the history of this country when the personnel of the navy stood so high, and so deservedly high, as it does at the present day. And when, in addition to this immense and this incomparable force, you add the coast-guard afloat and on shore—a force which is organized to be ready to embark within twenty-four hours in case of n,eed—and the Naval Reserve and the Coast Volunteers, I do not think it can be argued that the condition of the navy
  1946
  with reference to men is not, for the immediate requirements of the time, eminently satisfactory. Then, if we turn from men to ships, can we say the same of our shipbuilding operations? If a sudden emergency were to arise, on board what ships should we place those ample reserve! if we desired to send them to sea? The hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire (Sir John Walsh), adopting the views and words of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), told us that to put men on board vessels like our old timber screw liners, would be like putting sheep into a slaughter-house. I do not think that any person familiar with the subject will doubt for a moment the expediency of promoting as rapidly as possible (within reasonable limits) the construction of the newest and most powerful armour-plated vessels, either for offensive or defensive purposes. But I would go further than this. We must not only give our energies to the completion of our armour-plated fleet, but the time has arrived when it will not do to take so long a time in building an armour-plated ship as we have hitherto taken. The science of naval architecture and construction changes and progresses at so great a rate, that if we take, as we have been taking, three years to build an armour-plated ship—I will not say that the ship will he obsolete when she is completed, but most undoubtedly we shall have commenced the construction of vessels which she could not venture to meet with any chance of success; while, at the same time, the science of gunnery may have made great advances. Let me refer to the case of the Minotaur. It was said the other night that the Admiralty had been hasty in the construction of the Minotaur with shallow teak backing, after it had been proved that the Warrior target offered a greater resisting power. Now, that statement is not capable of proof. The Board of Admiralty were compelled to make their election as to the thickness of the teak-backing and armour-plating in the month of December, 1861. If I am not mistaken the Minotaur target was tried in the summer of 1862, It is true that the Minotaur target was not a success as a target; but the Admiralty lad already decided on a thinner backing, which has its advantages. And it must be borne in mind that at that time very little progress had been made in the manufacture of the thicker armour-plates, and the Board of Admiralty came to the

  1947
  conclusion it did, not only on the recommendation of the Armour-plate Committee, but also on the General opinion of scientific men, that the resistance of armour-plates increased in the proportion of something like the square of their thickness. The manufacture of armour-plates has very-much improved since that target was tried; and considering that, and considering also the undoubted advantages of a thinner Bide for ships, I think the Board of Admiralty were right in proceeding with the Minotaur. But whether they arrived at the best conclusion or not, they exercised the best judgment in their power at the time. Probably, the greater part of a year will yet elapse before the whole of these vessels will be in commission, and if we are to rely on the Bellerophon target, we are already building ships which will have more resisting power than those we have yet built—far beyond the Minotaur and the Warrior. I say, therefore, it is necessary to have a little courage in dealing with this matter in these days. It is necessary for the Board of Admiralty to do that which an intelligent and enterprizing manufacturer would do, who, desirous of not being behindhand in the race, employs the newest and best machinery for his purpose, relying as far as they can on science and theory which has not yet been actually proved in the construction of vessels, and endeavouring not to be behindhand in the construction of the newest vessels of the greatest possible offensive and defensive powers. This, in fact, is what I have called the policy revealed in this Vote, and intended by the Board of Admiralty to be carried out. The Bellerophon is the best illustration of that policy. If we are not mistaken—for I admit that we necessarily run some risk, because we wish to be in advance and not to be left behind—she will be as rapid as the Warrior and Black Prince. She will be some ninety feet shorter; she will necessarily, therefore, be a more handy and manageable vessel; she will undoubtedly cost very much less; she will carry guns which no armour-plated vessel previously constructed could resist, and she will herself be clad in armour on which those guns with service charges have been tried in vain.
  Before passing from this subject I wish to refer to Vote 10. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto), who expressed a fear the other night that the decrease in this Vote
  1948
  might imply a want of determination on the part of the Admiralty to proceed rapidly with our armour-plated vessels. The decrease is no doubt a very considerable one; but it is owing in the first instance to our not buying materials of which we have an ample stock, and for which the market is unfavourable, namely, canvass and hemp. My hon. Friend is aware that the price of hemp has risen, because that article has taken the place of cotton in the manufacture of linen. Now as the price of cotton is likely not to increase but to fall, it is reasonable to believe that the price of hemp will also diminish, and that is therefore a sufficient reason for deferring purchases which might otherwise have been made. What my hon. Friend of course wants to know is this—have we or have we not stinted ourselves with reference to the material that enters so largely into the construction of those vessels, of which we stand so much in need, and which we are so desirous to complete? The market for iron, I think, is on the whole rising; at any rate, we have no reason to anticipate that it will fall. We have, therefore, thought it right to buy as much of that material as it was advisable and convenient to buy. It is only, therefore, in consequence of those purchases, and of the quantity of iron which we have in stock, that the demand for new purchases next year is reduced. What we have, and what we have taken an estimate for in this Vote, will be sufficient to provide for the completion within the financial year of every iron-plated ship which has been designed.
  Returning to Vote 8—the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) in his preliminary remarks the other night, expressed an apprehension that an increase in these Votes arose from a decision on the part of the Admiralty against the system of building our vessels of war partly by contract. That question, however, remains exactly in the position in which it stood before these Estimates were framed; all that the Board have done has only been to determine that, until certain heavy existing contracts are concluded, it is not advisable, except with reference to certain minor gun vessels, to enter into any new contract. The Board has never been of opinion, nor has Parliament, that it would be judicious for the country to rely exclusively upon contractors for the building of our vessels of war. It has always been held that what was

  1949
  most advisable was, that private builders and Her Majesty's yards should compete in the construction of these vessels; and it is for the very purpose of assisting us to decide between the two parties, that so much pains have been taken of late to improve our system of dockyard accounts. Our policy, then, has been simply this. We take a Vote for men which covers all our actual requirements, and leaves us a sufficient margin besides. We take a store Vote, which will enable us, if our labour be adequate, to complete every armour-cased vessel already designed within the next financial year. We ask for an increase upon Vote 8, in order that we may keep up to the requirements of the year with reference to repairs; in order that we may also bring up somewhat our arrears with respect to our steam reserve; and lastly, and above all, in order that we may devote the energies of our dockyards to the construction of some of the newest and, I believe, the most powerful vessels that ever have been designed. My hon. Friend knows that the Lord Warden and the Lord Clyde are timber vessels armour-plated, and constructed of such scantling that they could not be built in any but Her Majesty's dockyards; and that the Bellerophon takes the place of the Achilles.
  The Committee will now naturally expect that some explanation should be given them respecting what I may term the business arrangements under which this increased Vote will be expended. The proposition that I mean to maintain is this—namely, that the dockyard accounts of the Admiralty are now placed upon a basis which will enable them to be compared with advantage with the accounts of the best private shipbuilding firms in this country. The first account to which I will refer is what is called "the expense account" upon ships. That account for 1862–3 has already been laid upon the table at a period considerably in advance of the date at which it has Generally been produced. Like its predecessors, it is trustworthy as far as it goes. It originates in the workmanship sheets of labour and the notes for stores. I have myself personally traced those sheets and those notes from the time when the labour was expended, and the stores were drawn up to the moment when they were placed in the expense account; and I am enabled to state that the apportionment of the labour is carried out by the professional officers in the yards with a full consciousness of
  1950
  the necessity there is for accurately dividing the expenses. These workmanship sheets are kept by the Inspectors of the Royal dockyards; they are compared by the accountants of the yards with the payment of wages which takes place in the accountants' offices; they are checked, audited, and posted against the ships by the audit clerks. The stores are drawn upon demand notes, sent in by the proper officers of the yards, they are valued according to the rate-book in the storekeeper's department, and they are audited and posted by the audit clerks. But a question may arise as to the rate-books as compared with the actual cost of the stores when they are articles manufactured in the yard. The rate-books themselves are undergoing a systematic revision. In the conversion and manufacturing balance-sheets, next to the column which, contains the actual cost of making or converting each article, there is now inserted a column in which there will be put the rate-book valuation on charges. It will be evident that this juxtaposition of actual cost with price charged will very much facilitate the future periodical correction of the rate-book. In the mean time, if, adding up these respective columns, it is found that there is no great difference between the totals, the Committee will see that we cannot be far wrong in the charges we have made for manufactured articles. In this account, it will be seen that there are some estimated charges. Wow, as a matter of account, this is doubtless unsound. Matters of Estimate should never appear with matters of actual charge; but from the 1st of next month these items will be eliminated, and all labour in the manufacture or conversion of articles will be charged pro ratâ in the repairs of the ships. The cost of establishments, in like manner, and the repairs of plant, will be charged and paid for. Now, I think that those hon. Friends of mine who have experience in business transactions, and are enabled to judge of accounts, will admit that an expense account, constructed in the manner I have described, would be both trustworthy and exhaustive. I now pass on to the manufacturing balance-sheets. There are no accounts more difficult than these to produce in a satisfactory and easily intelligible form, because they deal with the production of articles which, though they go by the same name, are seldom absolutely identical, and which differ in dimensions, material, and finish. Nevertheless, I agreed

  1951
  with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish), when he expressed an opinion last year that our manufacturing balance-sheets were capable of improvement and simplification. The manufacturing sheets of 1862–3 are being tabulated and revised, so that they will be much simplified and reduced in bulk, and I believe that when they can be placed on the table they will be found to be as easily intelligible as the nature of the operations to which they relate will admit of. But there was after all something which I thought the House felt to be wanting in the dockyard accounts, and which these expense accounts could not furnish. The Finance Accounts of the year showed what proportion of each Vote was expended; but we had not yet had any accounts which showed the actual expenditure which took place in the Royal dockyards for labour. In the new accounts, which I have termed "labour chart," I present that information to the House. Those accounts show every farthing of our large expenditure for labour in the dockyards as attested by the accounts of each yard; and every farthing is distributed amongst the various ships or services upon which the labour was bestowed. It is an infallible and exhaustive balance sheet. If any hon. Member will take the trouble to add up the perpendicular columns, he will find that they represent the total payments for labour; and if he will add up the selfsame figures in the horizontal lines he will see that the amount is accurately apportioned to the ships upon which the labour was employed. But this is not the whole purpose of these accounts. Their object is not merely to show a certain amount of money payments, but they exhibit, as it were upon a map, the fullest explanations which the nature and variety of the operations will permit. I venture in fact to submit that they contain an unprecedented amount of information; and if my hon. Friends will take the trouble to study them, they will find it in as intelligible a form as the complexity of the operations will allow. The columns relating to cost of materials formed no part of the original design, but were added for the use of the Controller's department; and here I must give my hon. Friends a caution, or they may otherwise fall into an error. They will find that in some cases materials are charged twice over; but that arises from labour being expended in the manufacture of an article, and the article itself being
  1952
  used in the building or repair of ships in the same financial year. These possible inaccuracies will be remedied, and the value of the raw material consumed in the course of a given period will be made clear in connection with a new account with which we are about to complete our system of dockyard accounts—I mean a stock account. On the 1st of next month it is our purpose to take stock in all our yards, and hereafter a continuous account will be kept, both as regards value and kind. It was originally intended to conduct this operation in October last, but it was found more convenient to defer it till the beginning of the next financial year. The time, however, has not been lost; it has been occupied in the improvement of the ledger classification of our stores, and in so arranging our receptacles as to facilitate the operation of stock-taking when the time came. It will be quite unnecessary for me to make any remarks to justify the step which we are about to take. No business man will for a moment hesitate to say, that whatever may be the difficulty or the cost of such an undertaking, it is most essential to the economical management of a large business to take stock and to keep a stock account. The Finance Accounts of the year deal, and properly deal, with the Votes which have been granted in that year, and they are necessarily concluded with the financial year itself; but I have never been able to understand why expense accounts should not be brought down to the latest possible day, as materials for the formation of judgments which it is the business of the House to form. The labour charts, to which I have been referring, have, by a considerable and praiseworthy effort of the audit clerks and the accountant officers, been brought to the end of the natural year 1862–3; and although the accounts for the last nine months have not yet been distributed amongst hon. Members, it has been solely in consequence of the difficulty of getting them printed. I hope they will be ready in the course of the next week. The expense accounts for the year 1863–4, to the last day of the present month, will be laid on the table of the House before the close of the present Session. From that day the labour charts will be incorporated with the expense accounts; and with the manufacturing balance sheets, they will be brought down to the end of the last natural year. I do not know what may be passing in the minds of some of my hon.

  1953
  Friends. If any of them may be inclined to say, "Is this all in the way of progress and improvement that the Admiralty is enabled to show? Why this is nothing but a matter of accounts;"—most undoubtedly such a feeling will not find a place in the mind of any man accustomed to large mercantile and manufacturing operations. No large business was ever profitably or even safely conducted for any length of time, which was not based upon an accurate and exhaustive system of accounts. But if this is true of private undertakings, how much more true, I ask, must it not be of a great Government department like the Admiralty, which has shipbuilding and ship-repairing establishments scattered around our coasts, and in all quarters of the world, and which has no guide to control it like the simple, self-acting principle of profit and loss? Accounts such as these, if scrutinised in the dockyard and Controller's department, will keep alive in the minds of our permanent officials notions not only of the perfection and utility of the operations in which they are concerned, but notions also of their cost. An illustration occurs to me of the utility of such accounts, arising even since these papers were laid on the table of the House. I have said that the manufacturing accounts require considerable simplification. They have already done us good service, in having given rise to some valuable suggestions on the part of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seeley), and it is our intention to avail ourselves of those suggestions. That hon. Gentleman, in addressing his constituents a short time before the meeting of the House, drew a comparison between the cost of forging and casting in the Government dockyards and in private establishments. The hon. Gentleman stated that we paid for labour upon one cwt. of metal cent per cent more than in the establishment of his own firm. My hon. Friend, however, acknowledged that there might be circumstances to account for so large a discrepancy; and upon that point there could be no doubt whatever. For instance, if the operations of my hon. Friend consisted mainly in the production of an identical article—identical, that was to say, in size and mould—it would be easily understood that even a difference of 100 per cent was not more than might be expected. The hon. Gentleman said it was matter for inquiry and reform. I quite agreed in that observation; and accordingly on the first day of the Session I
  1954
  went to my hon. Friend and said to him, "Here is one purpose of these accounts fulfilled in this instance. We welcome your criticism as a necessary adjunct of our system. We will probe this matter to the bottom; and will endeavour to arrive at some conclusion. If we fail, I invite you to come down to Chatham, or some other department, and endeavour to solve the problem there. If we do not succeed there, you must take us to your works, and see if they will throw any light on this system. We will either show that your figures are incorrect or capable of explanation, or we will reduce the cost of our operations, or else we will purchase at private factories these articles which can be more cheaply bought than made.
  Well, Sir, this brings me to a large and important question—that of the organization of labour in Her Majesty's dockyards. I have made it my business, during the vacation, not merely to spend a considerable time in Her Majesty's yards, but also to visit, so far as time and opportunity permitted, some of the largest shipbuilding establishments in the country. I have examined the Thames and Millwall works, and I have also been to those with which the name of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) is associated; and I should not be doing justice to these great establishments if I were not to say that they are, as manufacturing establishments, an honour to the country. Whether with reference to the extent of their operations or to the quality of the workmanship they turn out, they are well worth the study of any Member of a Government Department, and are capable of affording suggestions which may be usefully adopted in the public service. Now, the first thing that strikes an observer on entering these private shipbuilding yards is the greater appearance of bustle, and the apparently greater pace of work—it seems as if the work went on at a more rapid pace. This difference is partly apparent and partly real. It is apparent only for this reason—that the private yards are much more cramped and confined than public yards. Men work together more like bees in a hive. This is not so much noticed when the men are on board ship; and I do not think even the experienced eye of the hon. Member for Birkenhead would have seen much amiss in this respect on board the Achilles when she was in the course of construction at Chatham. But undoubtedly there is a considerable and real dif-

  1955
  ference in the pace at which labour goes on in these private establishments. There is in these private yards a principle of organization which accounts for the greater haste of work. The men are paid as much as possible by what is called piecework. For day work shipwrights, or men occupying an equivalent position, expect 7s. a day, whilst by piecework they generally make 9s.—that is to say, for every day of work they expect to get a quarter of a day more by piecework. There is one undoubted advantage about this system—more work is got out of the same number of men. But then you do not get that advantage for nothing; you pay more for your men in the private yards than you do in Her Majesty's dockyards. The shipwrights in Her Majesty's yards get 4s. 6d. a day, to which another 6d. may be added for the value of their superannuation. My own opinion is that while, on the one hand, it would be unwise to throw away the positive advantage of a moderate minimum establishment of men, moderately paid, upon whom we can rely at a time of pressure, and when the labour market may offer peculiar temptations; so, on the other hand, it is well worth consideration how far, and under what circumstances, the Admiralty may take a hint from the private yards. If a time of pressure should arise, I see no reason why the Admiralty should not act upon the private yard system in the construction of the frames of ships, which are easily estimated for with reference to labour; and, indeed, in the case of the Lord Clyde, built at Pembroke, they have already adopted the system to a certain extent by the payment of "encouragement money," based upon the amount of work done. I believe that the system now pursued in private yards is mainly due to the change from wooden to iron shipbuilding, and, so far, the Admiralty have not allowed themselves to be left altogether behind. Many changes in the organization of labour in shipbuilding have been adopted by the Board of Admiralty. Considerable experience has been gained in the building of the Achilles, and too much praise can not be bestowed upon the late master shipwright at Chatham, for having relinquished the old plan of having twenty men in a gang, with one or two to lead them, and an Inspector, and having adopted a more economical system. But the Board of Admiralty have been so desirous to avail themselves of any improvement,
  1956
  that I should like to state, that in the appointment of a successor to Mr. Lang, the gentleman selected was recommended by the Controller, and chosen by the Board, expressly on the ground that his long experience in building iron ships qualified him for importing into the Royal dockyard at Chatham the knowledge which he had gained in the private yards of the country; and the first instructions given to this gentleman have been to consider and report as to any modifications which his experience and knowledge can suggest, and any modifications thus suggested will be brought to bear on the construction of the Bellerophon, which is to succeed the Achilles at Chatham. I may here mention that the charge for labour and materials in building the Achilles will be carried into account with reference to certain well known shipbuilding sections; so that the cost may be computed section by section, and compared with the cost of a similarly built vessel in the private shipbuilding establishments of the country. There are two respects in which the Board of Admiralty has lately introduced considerable and important changes in the system of organization of labour, and as they bear relation on the one hand to the whole system of organization in the shipbuilding department in each yard, and also to the department of the Controller of the Navy, I will briefly state the nature of these changes. As the Committee is aware, the organization of shipwrights' labour in the dockyards consists of gangs of twenty men, over each gang is a "leading man," over three or four leading men is an "Inspector," and over the Inspector is a "foreman," who is responsible to an assistant master shipwright, and he in his turn to the master shipwright himself. This is an extremely elaborate system as some people think—too elaborate and too costly. Certainly, in the construction of iron ships we have found it possible to dispense with some portion of so costly a system. But although this is the system in the dockyards, arising from the desire for securing fidelity of operations and accuracy of accounts, this elaborate organization has come not to be exclusively employed for its direct and proper function—namely, the insuring a full day's work for a full day's wages. Stores, for example, may be wanted for the construction or repair of a ship, and the man who should be leading the gang, may be away drawing these stores, and the Inspector

  1957
  may be down in his cabin making entries of the accounts of the men's labour in his books. Now, if I have leading men, I mean to insist that the leading man shall himself be at work, and leading others to work; if I have an Inspector, that Inspector is never to lose sight of the men he has to inspect. The Board of Admiralty has taken the same view, and I have to state to the Committee that other arrangements have been made for the drawing of stores, and for carrying this labour to account, and that orders have gone down that the leading men are not to leave the gangs at work, and the Inspectors are not to lose sight of the men. This may appear a simple and a small matter, but it is one of great importance in point of economy and management. Besides this, there is a system of check measurements. The task and job system has been given up, and a plan is in use of measuring the work of the gangs of men in order to ascertain whether a fair day's work has been done. About a quarter of the work done in each yard is thus measured. Some people think that this system of check measurement takes away the responsibility of the Inspectors as to the quantity of the work; they call it the "crutch" of the system. Others think that it stimulates the labour of the men, and they call it the "whip" of the system. Perhaps it may be sometimes a crutch, and sometimes a whip, but my opinion is that too much reliance has been placed upon it, and that it does in some cases tend to diminish the sense of responsibility of those who have control over the men. But if I had any doubt as to the advisability of a system of measurement in the yards, there is one place in which I entertain no doubt that such a system should be brought into operation, and that is the department of the Controller of the Navy. This officer has the supervision of all the yards, who makes his demand for labour on us, and who ought to see to the economy of the operations consequent on his orders. This view has also been adopted by the Board of Admiralty. They propose to introduce a new officer into the Controller's Department, but that change will not occasion any additional cost to that establishment. They propose to give the Controller an officer, to be called the "Valuer and Inspector of Dockyard Works." This officer will have to place himself in relations with the Audit Department of the yard; he will
  1958
  take in hand the labour accounts which I have endeavoured to-night to explain to the Committee, and which will be produced every month for the use of the yard and of the Controller's Department. It will be his special duty to check the estimates of work before it is undertaken, and to test the economy of the operation when completed; he will ascertain the reasonable charge, and see that it was adhered to, or know the reason why. The purpose of that new arrangement is the introduction into the Controller's Department, on which depends the whole management of the dockyards, of the business and economical element by the side of the scientific and constructive element. These reforms will be made to pay for themselves, and the requisite staff will be obtained by taking measurers from the yards without any addition to the total expenditure.
  I have detained the Committee for a long time with a very dry statement, as I have been anxious to explain these matters fully; but the objections that have been taken to dockyard management have been business objections, and they have to be met, as far as they are well founded, by business arrangements. I must say, that in questions of administration like this I feel little confidence in what are called sweeping changes, when they are the product, as they sometimes are, of impatience of thought rather than of a close and laborious investigation. But the changes I have described, although simple, are not trifling, and although fundamental, I believe them to be practical and safe. At any rate, I will say this to the Committee—that they are the results of a patient, a careful, and a long-continued investigation—that they have received the ample consideration of the Department of the Controller and of the Board of Admiralty itself. And if I rely on them to produce good economic fruit in the future management of our establishments, I do so because I know that I can rely on the choice of instruments to carry them out, and because I have the assurance that I can also trust to the zeal, the determination, and the incessant watchfulness and care of those permanent officials upon whom, after all, rests the responsibility and depends the successful management of these great departments.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he regretted that the very frank statement just made by his hon. Friend had not been delivered before the House went into Committee,

  1959
  because it had touched upon many different points, into which, by the rules of the House, it would be impossible to follow him. He told them that the Admiralty had now got—what they ought to have had long ago—a good system of accounts; but, as far as the House was concerned, the accounts still disclosed very little information. The labour chart told them, for instance, that £50,000 had been spent in labour and materials upon the Achilles, but it did not say how the money had been spent. "Expended in plating," &c., was information of too limited a character to enable the House to see whether the money had been spent wisely or not—whether value was obtained for the outlay. As far as he could judge, even with these improved accounts, they would not be able to get at what was the cost of a ship. His hon. Friend spoke of a system of percentage which was to be introduced into the accounts, to show the actual cost of a ship under the various heads of expenditure; but he said nothing of the interest of the enormous sums sunk in the dockyards, or of the depreciation of the stock constantly going forward, though these were items important to be borne in mind when they sought to draw a comparison between Her Majesty's dockyards and private yards. Again, there was insurance; for, though Government did not insure, the public were bound to rebuild whenever a fire broke out. His hon. Friend laid stress upon the system of inspection which was to exist in future. Why, he always thought there had been inspection, and if not there ought to have been. There was a large staff in the dockyards, who should have performed the duty of Inspectors. What were these new Inspectors to do? Were they to relieve existing officials from portions of their legitimate duty, which consisted in seeing that the men performed their work economically and well, or were they to superintend the Admiral, Superintendents, and other principal officers of the dockyards? One of the points most strongly noticed both by the Committee of 1859 and the Royal Commission was that men in the dockyards, unlike those in private establishments, seemed to aim more at how they could get over the day than at the amount of work they could get through in the day. The reason was that they were employed at day instead of at piece-work; and his hon. Friend, far from giving the men in the dockyards the same inducements to labour
  1960
  which they had elsewhere, never touched what he would call the root of the evil. Both the Committee and the Commission also said that ships cost in Her Majesty's dockyards three times as much for labour as in private yards. They furnished details as to eight corvettes, and told them that the actual cost for labour, when fitted for sea, amounted to £8 13 s. 10 d. per ton, whilst similar vessels were built in private yards for £2 16 s. per ton. His hon. Friend, instead of entering into details, should have told them what changes had been made in the dockyards since that time to enable them to construct vessels more economically and efficiently. At Pembroke it was found that the cost of constructing hulls, labour, and materials was £33 5s. 5d. per ton, exclusive of fittings, and of £350,000 spent in one year upon plant; and it was found also "that the management of the dockyards was most inefficient, arising from the defective organization of subordinate departments, and from the want of clear and well-defined responsibility." The Royal Commissioners wound up their Report by recommending that iron shipbuilding should not be carried on in Her Majesty's dockyards. It was, indeed, agreed that one iron ship should be built at Chatham, to enable the Admiralty to check the charges of private building yards. He did not, however, think that after all they would be able to get at the actual cost of the Achilles. Although the House had agreed to the building of one ship as an experiment, they certainly did not contemplate that the Admiralty would become iron shipbuilders on a large scale; but the whole tendency of the Estimates and statements submitted to them was, that the Government wished to be, as regarded the building of both wooden and iron ships, altogether independent of the private shipbuilding yards of the country. He believed the time would come when the Government might require all the energies of the private shipbuilding yards; and if they were not employed in time of peace they might not be found available in time of war. The work should be divided as much as possible between Her Majesty's dockyards and the private shipbuilding yards. His hon. Friend had not shown that the work could be done in Her Majesty's dockyards at the same cost as in private yards; if that could be done there would be no need for the 3,700 additional men now demanded. His hon. Friend could not deny that the work turned out

  1961
  of private yards was excellent—quite as good as anything they could turn out of Her Majesty's dockyards: he was bound, therefore, to show that it could be turned out as economically and as efficiently. With the view of testing this point he should move that the Vote he reduced by the sum of £244,979, the increase which was required for 3,700 additional men. He should go to a division unless the Government showed that they were justified in asking for extra men upon the ground that they could build as cheaply, efficiency always considered, as was done in private yards.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,030,337, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Wages to Artificers, Labourers, and others employed in Her Majesty's Naval Establishments at Home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865."—(Mr. Lindsay.)
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHmust say that the objections which had been made by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) to the accounts were very unreasonable. A great deal had been done to simplify the accounts, and to furnish valuable information to the Committee. The hon. Member complained that they were not told what was the cost of a vessel; but before he objected to the Vote for wages to the artificers, he ought to be able to show that the Achilles, which was built in the Royal dockyard at Chatham, was built badly or at too costly a rate. If the hon. Member has seen the Achilles, he must know that her workmanship was as perfect as that of the Warrior or the Black Prince. She had been constructed with the utmost care and on admirable designs; but the test after all would be that of wear, and it must be borne in mind that £51,000 had been already expended in repairing the Black Prince; and he did not think that anything of the kind would be required in the case of the Achilles. The hon. Member objected to the want of inspection; and complained because the Government were about to employ a valuer. The officer to be so employed was not to be an Inspector, but as he had said a valuer; and the two things were quite different. The system of inspection already was perfect; for a gang of ten men they had a "leading man," and they had, moreover, an Inspector who inspected every three gangs; and beyond this there were foremen and assistant shipwrights and a master shipwright. The Go-
  1962
  vernment, however, were determined to have something more than that, so that they might be enabled to know whether they got value for the money expended, as well as good workmanship. The Inspectors are responsible for the quality of the work, as the valuer would be of its quantity; and therefore a valuer was to be appointed to go over the work. He (Sir Frederic Smith) believed that this would be a very useful appointment provided the Government appointed a fit man for the duty. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lindsay) objected to vote the cost of the extra workmen; but surely, when he did so, he could not have attended to what had been said on a previous occasion by the Government, that these workmen were wanted chiefly for the purpose of repairs which had not been carried out last year? He should like to know how these men would be introduced into the service? Would they be taken on by order of the Controller, or hired by the superintendent of the yard when required? His hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) introduced a change in the practice, by causing a notice to be stuck up at the dockyard gates that a certain number of men were required; they presented themselves, and, if found eligible, were employed. That was a most wholesome system. It prevented jobbery, and he hoped it would be adhered to. The hon. Member for Halifax had fixed the wages of the shipwrights at 4s. 6d. a day, and his estimates gave 6d. more for superannuation; but if he had consulted an actuary he would have found that the superannuation would have amounted to only 3d. more on the day, and therefore the whole value of each shipwright's advantages would only be reckoned at 4s. 9d. a day. The joiners in the Government dockyards were much underpaid at 3s. 10d. a day; if the same hands were employed by private persons they would get 6s. a day, and yet the hon. Member for Sunderland expected to get as much work out of them for the 3s. 10 d. as if they were paid 6s. a day. With respect to the work done by the men, the hon. Member for Sunderland said there was no appearance of bustle among the men; but he (Sir Frederic Smith), when he went on board the Royal Oak, in company with Admiral Fanshawe, found out what it was to be in a bustle. Bees in a hive were never more industriously at work than was the swarm of men who were toiling there. It was hardly fair,

  1963
  however, to say that the work was costly. The hon. Member for Halifax had omitted to state that there were dockyard measurers who measured the work of the joiners and shipwrights, and if they found the proper amount of work not done the men were mulcted of part of their pay. That was fair enough. But, on the other hand, if any men were found to have done more work than the regular amount required, they did not get any allowance for the overwork. The hon. Member for Halifax took credit for having proceeded with the Minotaur, even though there was an opinion that she was constructed on a wrong principle. He (Sir Frederic Smith) found fault with the Admiralty that they built their ships first and tested them afterwards. The Minotaur was inferior to the Warrior, and probably to the Bellerophon. He hoped the Bellerophon would prove a good vessel; but the Bellerophon target was not tested with a full charge of powder, and it was the duty of the Admiralty to have tested to the utmost the resisting power of the armour-plating intended to be used for the security of a ship before they applied it. It was said that the Bellerophon target was a copy of ft target invented by Mr. Chalmers, and if this man showed the way to make it, he was entitled to receive some reward. He (Sir Frederic Smith) was told that the construction of this target cost Mr. Chalmers £1,650, and that he was a poor, but clever man, and it was greatly to the credit of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) that he had assisted Mr. Chalmers with the money to make this target. It was, however, stated that the £1,250 advanced by the hon. Member had been returned to him; and, if this was so, the poor man who invented the targets was equally entitled to receive the £400 or £450 which he had spent out of his own slender funds, and which was of the greatest importance to him. He knew that his noble and gallant Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty was daily beset by inventors, who consumed a good deal of his time; but if the noble Lord would have the charity to look into this question, and see whether the poor man had a right to anything or not, he believed he would generously recommend the Department to give Mr. Chalmers what he was entitled to. The next point on which he would wish to know something was as to the system of construction which was being adopted under the auspices of the new Constructor
  1964
  of the Navy. It was said that the new Constructor was a man of great science. No one had a greater respect for science than he (Sir Frederic Smith), but he must say that in shipbuilding no amount of science would be equivalent to a fair share of practical experience. No doubt, in the course of time, the scientific man, if he wished, could also become practical; but at present, as neither his noble Friend nor the Controller was either a constructor or designer, the future navy depended on the talent of a man who, unfortunately, had not actual experience to guide him. They were told that the Bellerophon would be faster, though she was 100 feet shorter than the Warrior. It would require a large amount of science to convince him (Sir Frederic Smith) of the truth of this assertion, unless the lines of the ship were to be made sharper; and if this last was to be the case, he could not see how she could carry heavier armour, or perform another thing that was promised—throw a heavier broadside than any other vessel in the British navy. Parliament ought to know the truth. They were about to devote a large sum of money for shipbuilding, and ought to know what kind of a ship was about to be built, and how she was to carry the heaviest armament known. He should like to know whether his noble Friend was driving at speed or at thickness of armour, or at a combination of both. His noble and gallant Friend said that he was about to build gunboats protected by armour-plating to the water-line. Was not their armour to go below that line, and, if not, what was to protect the lower part of their hulls when they were engaging to windward? He would rather see the armour-plating extending below the water-line and tapering off towards the top. General actions on land were not fought with the men protected, and we should sacrifice too much if we attempted to make our ships proof against shot. To do that we must have slow heavy vessels. If we could keep out shell it was as much as we ought to attempt. It would he better to let a shot go in at one side and out at the other, than to load a vessel with a weight of armour which she could not carry in bad weather. Had the Government made up their minds which was the best armour? If not, he hoped the Bellerophon target would be thoroughly tested at once. If that were not done, there would be a risk of our again spending a large amount of money in the least useful manner. The hon. Gentleman opposite

  1965
  had told them that task and job work was given up. No doubt, that work done on that system was some times indifferently done, but with a system of measurement there was a security that they obtained the work for which they paid. He could not assent to the proposed reduction of the Vote. If the Government assured the Committee that these men were required for the repairs of vessels coming home, and to aid in the construction of new vessels, they must make the statement on their own responsibility, and for this reason he would give them his support
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) who introduced the discussion by an able statement, had said that it would be impossible to keep to the Vote before the House, and accordingly travelled over a great many questions in like manner, he (Sir James Elphinstone) should go beyond the question, with a view to criticize some of the policy of the Government indicated by it. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty and the hon. Gentleman took credit for having an overflowing exchequer of men, and the noble Lord had more than once boasted of being able to man a ship within twenty-four hours. But the noble Lord did not tell them how many ships he could man within twenty-four hours; nor had he stated how many men there were now in reserve. Could he send five ships of the line to sea? He believed it was a fact that the Admiralty had been calling upon the coast-guard, and that on board some of the coast-guard ships no crew remained but the stokers. The reduction of 2,000 boys required explanation. He was told that those boys had never existed, and, therefore, could not be reduced. As to the Royal Naval Reserve, the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman took credit for that force; but the Committee must bear in mind that the Naval Reserve, to which he intended at a future time to direct the attention of the House, could only be called upon after an actual declaration of war, and, therefore, could not be relied upon to man our fleet at this time. Then came the question of the iron-plated fleet. They had had an able exposition of the budget of the Admiralty; but the Committee had not been told what were the classes of ships which were in future to form the navy of this country. At present, we had the most heterogeneous collection of vessels it was possible to conceive.
  1966
  Two or three pairs of ships might effectually work together, but of the rest no two were alike or of a sort; and in a most extraordinary document which had appeared in The Times respecting the projected construction of iron ships, and which was supposed to emanate from the pen of the Constructor of the Navy, there certainly were not two ships of any sort which bore the slightest resemblance to each other. It was true, as the last speaker had said, that speed could not be combined with reduced length, nor capacity with diminished beam. It was very doubtful how the proposed heavy guns could be carried. Broadside guns must be cast loose at sea; but with the artillery that it was now proposed to place in our ships it was impossible to do this—no 15-ton gun could be cast loose at sea. Therefore, if enormous guns were to be used, they must be carried in turrets or by means of some other mechanical arrangement. The hon. Gentleman had not only given the Committee no programme of the classes of ships, but he had made no statement of how these new ships were to be rigged. The present mode of rigging was really lubberly. They were undermasted, the yards and rigging clumsy, and the masts were so far apart that it was impossible to support them with braces; and the ships were deprived of the studding sails, which in large ships were most effective and powerful. The statement of the Government was defective in not referring to the class of swift cruisers like the Alabama. If we had not had a Government that was willing to accept any indignity rather than go to war, this country would have been now engaged in hostilities, and in that case we should have no means of protecting our commerce against such vessels as the Alabama. It would be necessary, in the event of war, to place a brace of ships at every focus of our commerce in the world—at the Azores, at the Gut of Gibraltar, at the Cape of Good Hope, to the eastward of New Amsterdam; in the China Seas, in Torres Straits, and other positions. It was said the six gunboats were to be built upon some unexplained principle; but nothing was said of the class o£ swift cruisers which would be required to protect our commerce in time of war. The noble Lord had spoken of the gunboats of the Lively class, that they had gone to the East Indies and to all parts of the world. It was possible for a vessel to go

  1967
  to the East Indies without reefing topsails if she went at the right season. He believed that some of these gunboats did get out to the East Indies in five months, and others took eleven months for the voyage. The best plan would be to take the engines out of the gunboats and put them on board new hulls constructed for speed with double screws, and thus they would get rid of a large number of useless vessels for a smaller number of handy vessels. With respect to the accounts he could not say much, except that he believed every chip and rope yarn in the dockyards was accounted for. He did not believe that improved accounts would get rid of existing evils, which were rather to be traced to the policy pursued by the Admiralty. More money was wasted by one ill-devised ship than by all the imperfect accounts ever discovered. The scheme of accounts of the hon. Gentleman seemed to him much the same as that introduced by Sir Robert Seppings, and which Sir James Graham swept away as too complicated and elaborate. In conclusion, he wished to observe with respect to the joiners in our dockyards, that they were called upon to perform work of the neatest description, that they worked with very delicate tools, and that, inasmuch as their outfit at the commencement cost £25, the loss of those tools, which were liable to be made objects of theft, was to them matter of serious consequence. That being so, the wages which those men received were quite inadequate to their position, and the Government would, he hoped, take their case into consideration.
  MR. SEELY,referring to the item of £38,450 for police divisions, while admitting that it was necessary that there should be some persons employed to watch our dockyards, thought the sum asked for in the present year for the purpose, amounting as it did to nearly £40,000, was too large an expenditure in connection with the single item of police. Comparing that expenditure with the amount required for the performance of similar duties in private yards—for example, in that with which he was connected, where they employed 950 men, at a cost for guarding and watching of £75 per annum—the sum, he must confess, appeared to him to be preposterously high. He was not, however, prepared to make any Motion on the subject this year, but unless some explanation of the amount was given next Session he should certainly move the reduction of the Vote. The hon.
  1968
  Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had alluded to a statement which he (Mr. Seely) had made with regard to cast iron forgings. In 1860–1 the Government manufactured 92,818 cwt. of iron forgings, at a cost of 13s. 7¾d. per cwt., making £63,360 4s. 6d. His firm paid 7s. 3½d. He was speaking of the labour only. Now if the Government had manufactured their forgings at the same price, as they were manufactured at Stamp End, instead of £63,000, the cost would have been £33,000, being a saving of £29,000 in that one article alone. In 1861–2 the Government manufactured 57,712 cwt., at a cost of 13 s. 8½d., amounting to £39,545. His firm at Stamp End paid 6s. 9d. per cwt., so that if the Government had manufactured at the same price, instead of £39,540, it would have been £19,718, or a saving of £19,826. Of iron castings the Government manufactured 32,269 cwt., at a cost of 4s. 0¼d. per cwt.—£6,487 8s. 3d. for labour only. His firm paid 1s. 7½d. There were also the items of iron and brass casting in which the results were very much the same, the expenditure of the Government being about twice as much as that of the private yard. His hon. Friend the Member for Halifax had met the point very fairly, observing that the Government had no interest in paying that increased amount, and that if they had done so it was because they were ignorant of the value of the work done—a remark which would be equally applicable to hon. Gentlemen opposite did they happen to be in office. But while he admitted the fairness of that excuse, he must complain that there were not placed at the head of each department in our dockyards men who knew the value of work, and who had been accustomed through life to deal with large bodies of men like our artisans. In every private firm the object was to mass the men together, that the eye of the foreman might be over them, and this should be done in the Royal dockyards, where a proper division of labour should also be carried out. There were many Members of the House who had a special knowledge of particular subjects, and it would be well to appoint a Committee at the beginning of each Session to select Gentlemen of this character to examine the various accounts now submitted to the House, and bring their knowledge to bear for the service of the country.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he was anxious to address a few words to the Committee on a subject with which he believed the

  1969
  Board of Admiralty was very well acquainted—namely, the claims of the artificers employed in the dockyards. He was informed, and he believed it to be the fact, that there was scarcely a class of artificers in Her Majesty's dockyards who had not a grievance of some sort to complain of. On the 16th of October, 1861, an Admiralty order was issued of a most extraordinary character, limiting the age of the promotion of artificers in the dockyards to forty-five years; so that, however able and however valuable a man might be after he had attained that age, he was debarred from all promotion. This limit, however, was to be extended to fifty years in the case of leading men and officers. When the order was issued it created the greatest dismay in the dockyards, and complaints were forwarded to the Board of Admiralty, but he believed that no notice was taken of them. Afterwards, when Sir Frederick Grey went down to Devonport as a candidate, he promised the men employed at the dockyards that on his return to the Admiralty this grievance should be inquired into. It was inquired into, and replies were sent up by some of the principal officers in the Devonport yard, in which, as he was informed, it was distinctly stated that the Admiralty order would not work beneficially. Yet, when he (Mr. Ferrand), stated that he should bring the matter before the House, an order was sent down from the Admiralty threatening any person who gave information with dismissal; and under those circumstances he felt himself compelled to refrain from bringing the subject under the notice of the House. Then, again, the old rules relating to the apprentices bad been altered so as to give great dissatisfaction, and he thought it desirable that the Government should state why the alteration had taken place. The hired hands complained of serious grievances. They state that the established men when past work retire on pensions adequate for the support of themselves and families in comfort, while the hired men when past work are dismissed without pensions, and have no refuge but the workhouse. Yet they were fully equal to the established men as workmen, and they looked upon the treatment to which they were subjected as a serious hardship. They had been induced to leave private yards, high wages, and comfortable homes, to be employed in Her Majesty's dockyards on the establishment, and they found by this order that all their hopes were taken
  1970
  from them. He believed the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would admit that the joiners had fair claims upon the Government. In private yards the joiners had 5s. 6d. a day, and in the dockyards they had only 3s. 10 d., and they had to provide a chest of tools that cost them from £25 to £30. Then, again, the wages of the ropemakers had been seriously reduced by the introduction of steam power. During the last eighteen months there had been a General rise of wages throughout the whole country in every trade, not only arising from a decrease of population, but also from the great rise in the price of clothing and meat. The expense of a man's clothing was now nearly double what it was a few years ago; as an instance of which he might mention that in Bradford the best wool was now worth 2s. 5d. a pound, whereas a few years ago it was 1s. to 1s. 4d. a pound. Cotton goods were also extremely dear, and butcher's meat was almost beyond the reach of a working man, unless he was receiving a very high scale of wages. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) would take into consideration the memorials received from those dockyard artificers—memorials most respectfully worded and well deserving of attention. It might be said that if they raised the wages of some of the artificers they must raise the wages of all. Why should they not do so if it would be only just? He thought any Committee which inquired into the subject would arrive at the conclusion that there was a fair claim on the part of the artificers for an increase of wages, and he hoped the Admiralty would take this subject into immediate and earnest consideration.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he thought that rather scant justice had been done to the hon. Member for Halifax. The labour undergone by the hon. Gentleman in producing the results he had brought before the House, with regard to the cost of the artificers, must have been immense. For the first time there now appeared in the Estimates an account of the amount for every artificer in each of the dockyards. It had been urged that the Admiralty ought not to compete with the private industry of the country; but surely it was right that they should have a check on that industry in order that the contracts might be kept within proper limits. Beyond that he should be sorry to see such competition go. If the amount expended

  1971
  on the department was a test of its efficiency—as he presumed it must be taken to be—the navy was in an efficient state. The Vote before the House amounted to almost £1,200,000, while the French charge for artificers was only £682,580. The same rate of comparison ran through the various branches of the naval departments in each country respectively. We had nearly double the number of men and ships that France had. On a former occasion he said that in the French navy there were only seventeen transports, and that the largest of these was only 800 tons. He had been misunderstood by the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), for he only alluded to sailing transports when he made that statement. In the French navy there were also ten steam transports.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he quite concurred in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Sykes) had said about the hon. Member for Halifax, whom he looked upon as a most valuable acquisition to the Government. He wished also to render justice to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, who was in the habit of making more lucid statements on the subject of the Estimates than they had been accustomed to hear before the noble Lord came into office. They were likewise indebted to the noble Lord for giving them the specific cost of each ship. He wished to hear from the noble Lord to what extent the Admiralty were prepared to go in regard to repairs of wooden ships now in the navy. If those repairs were gone on with to any great extent, the House could not have that practical economy which they had hoped for from the employment of another material. It was the duty of the Government to keep up a sufficiency of timber ships until vessels of another class could be provided on which we could confidently rely, but still the Government should be satisfied with the minimum that would meet our requirements, and the wooden ships should be taken off the lists as quickly as they got iron ones to replace them. He did not very well understand the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Halifax with regard to time in the construction of vessels. He also wished for information as to what extent the Admiralty contemplated the construction of iron-cased ships with wooden frames. He thought that last year there was a pledge, on the part of the Government, that there should not be an increase in these
  1972
  ships beyond a certain number. Almost all his friends doubted the efficiency of this experiment. He was glad to find that the Government had recognized the principle of stock-taking, for without stock-taking there could be no accounts at all, no balance could be struck, and without a balance the accounts gave very little information. With regard to piecework, thirty years' experience had taught him that without piecework it was impossible to obtain an estimate of the value of labour. If the Government intended, as the hon. Member for Halifax had said, to make the dockyards a moderate minimum establishment, he should be perfectly content; for while he wished them to be able to build vessels of their own to a certain extent, and not to be entirely dependent on private yards, he should be sorry to see them going into the enormous expense which would be necessary to enable them to rely entirely on their own exertions. The alterations in the Warrior and the Black Prince which had been mentioned were practically alterations required by the Government, and not at all incidental to the character of the workmanship or the incapacity of the builders to carry out the design of the Government. With regard to the Chalmers target, Mr. Chalmers had been sent to him by a distinguished officer of the Engineers, and when he looked into his invention he was so much struck with its scientific importance that he said that if Government would give it a fair trial he would pay the expense of the target and take the risk of the loss of the amount in the event of failure of the target. That was done, and the Government had since repaid him; but if, as had been stated, that target had proved to be the best produced, he thought the poor fellow was entitled to some consideration at the hands of the Government, and he felt sure the noble Lord would give him that degree of consideration which he merited. With regard to what had been said by an hon. Gentleman opposite, as to the Government being ready to submit to any amount of indignity, it would be far more courageous for those who thought so to propose a vote of want of confidence, than to come down night after night with vague accusations. Let them put their complaints into a definite form as soon after Easter as possible, and have the matter fairly argued out. As to the complaint which had been made of the barren result of Commissions and Committees, the state-

  1973
  ment which had been made to-night by the hon. Member for Halifax and the reforms which had been promised were proofs that they had not been without good effect.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he did not share in the alarm which seemed to be felt by some hon. Members, that the Government were not going to spend money enough on the navy this year. During the last two years the workmen in the dockyard had been between 16,000 and 17,000, but this year they were to be 19,000, and the House would be labouring under a great delusion if it supposed that when we employed nearly 3,000 more workmen and expended £162,000 that would be the whole cost. There had been no reduction whatever, and the charges for wages and stores would rather exceed than be under the expenditure of last year. He wished to pay his tribute of thanks to the hon. Member for Halifax for the able, clear, and lucid statement which he had submitted to the House. Although the great improvement that had taken place in the dockyards proved that the Government were on the right tack, a great deal more ought to be done. The Commission had expressed a strong opinion that before any great work was undertaken there ought to be a carefully considered estimate, which should be signed by all the chief parties concerned in the transaction. He wished to know if any progress had been made in that direction, because it went to the whole question as to where the expenditure of the dockyards was initiated. The arguments of the hon. Member for Halifax went to show that a better system now prevailed in the dockyards, and that the cost of a ship might be obtained, but that was by no means clear, looking at the expenditure in building and in repairs. It appeared that the cost of six ships, carrying twenty-five guns, was £90,000, whilst twenty other ships had cost £511,000, making £601,000 for twenty-six ships. The House ought to know who were the parties who set in motion all this expenditure, and to see if there was any estimate signed by the proper authorities. He should like to know whether there was any such document in existence, and trusted the noble Lord would give some explanation on the subject. If the hon. Member opposite divided the House he certainly should vote with him.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, that a large amount was to be expended in wages and materials next year, and there ought to be some ex-
  1974
  planation from the Government of what was to be done for the money. They knew that a great many ships were coming home that would require large repairs, and that new ships were to be built; but the Government ought to tell the Committee how many new ships were to be built, and how much money would be spent in repairs. If one-half of the whole amount was to be spent on repairs, it proved that they were going on using the wrong material, because private builders had constructed iron ships which the Government and other parties had used for twenty to thirty years without expending on them more than a very trifling amount in repairs. The excess of £160,000 of Vote 8 in Wages over the expenditure of last year, represented the labour on 25,000 tons of new ships at the highest cost per ton; and, according to the figures for Wages and Materials, they ought to have 80,000 tons of new ships equal to forty new ships of 2,000 tons each. Now, was it intended to build to that extent? The hon. Member for Halifax had done a great deal during the time he had been in office; but the Committee were entitled to know how many new ships would be built, and how much money would be spent on repairs. The only explanation they had yet received was that given in the statement of the hon. Member for Halifax who said they were going to have such ships as had never before been seen, and he instanced the Bellerophon. She was to carry guns of 16 tons and 22 tons weight. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: No!] He spoke of the weight of the gun including the carriage, and it was clear that to move the gun they must be able to move the carriage. According to the opinion of practical men, the largest gun which could be worked in a broadside was a gun of 6½ tons, and about 3 tons for the carriage, and yet we were building ships to carry guns of 16 and 22 tons. He suggested that these 16 ton and 22 ton guns should be put on board existing vessels, and sent across the Atlantic to see if they would work, before the new ships for which they were intended were completed. If the trial proved satisfactory, the ships could be proceeded with; but if it appeared that practically they could not be worked, an enormous expenditure would be saved and turned to some other use. He was unwilling to vote for any reduction, but he thought the Government ought to give more detailed information.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, his hon. Friend who proposed the reduction of the Vote had made a slight error. He made out that the sum of £324,000 for hired artificers stood against £80,000 for the same item last year. But the very next item to the £80,000 was £70,000 for hired artificers in building the Achilles, so that the real comparison was £324,000 not against £80,000, but against £150,000. He begged pardon if he had been supposed to demur to the statement of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) as to the weight of the guns in the Bellerophon. It was the usual custom in deciding upon the armament of a ship, to deal with the guns, and not with the carriages. When a ship would carry a six ton gun, that meant with the carriage of the gun added. The Bellerophon would be armed with a twelve ton gun, with the carriage added. His hon. Friend seemed to suppose that if the guns were too heavy, the ship would become useless. But that was not so. The guns were put on board the ship experimentally. If she would not carry a twelve ton gun, lighter guns would be substituted. He did not profess to be a shipbuilder, and he quite admitted that it was an experiment. But the Admiralty had not decided on that class of ship without very careful consideration. Their Chief Constructor had already turned out two small vessels, the Enterprise and the Research, which were both successful as far as they had been tried, and this vessel would be on the same principle, only greatly enlarged. She would have a great advantage over the Warrior and Minotaur, as she would be a great deal handier, being 100 feet shorter. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) asked for more detailed information. He did advert the other night, and his hon. Friend the Member for Halifax had adverted in his able statement tonight, to the necessity of voting a considerably larger sum for repairs in the coming year. It was perfectly true that the employment of a greater number of workmen involved the inference that they intended to expend a large amount of stores. As regarded the stores, they were in a very satisfactory condition, and in repairs the proportion of materials to labour was very much less than in building. The hon. Baronet would therefore see, that although there was a very much larger Vote for labour, the expenditure for material would not be so large in proportion.
  1976
  The hon. Baronet asked whether the Admiralty had made an estimate of the cost of repairs. Well, they did as far as they could, but nothing was so liable to error as an estimate of repairs. They would have to repair ships now in China, and it was impossible to frame a strict estimate of an expenditure which would depend on the state of the ships on their return home. All they could do was to deal with averages. He would give the Committee an idea of the proportions of this Vote in the various services. After a very careful analysis for some years past, they found that about 23 per cent of the Vote for services performed by the artificers in the dockyards was expended in building and fitting. His hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), said they ought to have 80,000 tons of new ships next year. But he had altogether omitted the items of repairing and refitting, the average of which was 28 per cent of the labour Vote. For building and fitting their average was about 23 per cent, for repairing and refitting 28 per cent, and for manufacture 49 per cent. The average last year for building and fitting was 22 per cent, for repairing and refitting 33 per cent, and for manufacture 45 per cent. Next year the proportion under the head of repairing and refitting would be considerably more inasmuch as they had reliefs to carry out in the case of no less than 64 ships. The number of reliefs in 1863 was 57, and in 1862 only 53. He mentioned the other evening that they were about to commence the construction of a class of ships novel as regarded the navy, but not novel to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird). They hoped to be able to turn out a class of ships of great speed, and very valuable as cruisers, like a vessel which they had all heard a good deal of (the Alabama). They proposed to construct next year 13,604 tons of armour-plated ships, and of non-armour 4,404. Up to the 31st of December last they had built 5,807 tons of armour ships, and of non-armour 683 tons. The Committee would observe that both in building and repairing they would have a great deal more work to do next year than this year. He had always candidly told the Committee where the Government were behind, and they were now behind in the reserves. Unfortunately they had been so occupied in other respects, that their first-class steam reserves were in a backward state. "A stitch in time saves nine," and if repairs were put off from

  1977
  year to year, they became very heavy in the end. Moreover, the smaller ships, especially of the wooden fleet, were getting worn out, and he was positive in a short time they should have to expend a considerable sum in building a fresh supply of small cruising vessels for the police of the seas.
  In answer to a question of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) on the subject of the School of Naval Architecture, he might be permitted to say that the models would, he trusted, be shortly removed to South Kensington, where a handsome apartment had been fitted up for them, and they were now in communication with the Institute of Naval Architects about the details of the school.
  And in answer to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), in reference to the pay of joiners, he was quite aware that the artificers of Her Majesty's dockyards did not receive that amount of pay which they might get in the private trade, and that remark applied not only to the joiners, but to all the artificers. The artificers had sent very respectful memorials to the Admiralty, complaining that, whereas they did not receive as good pay as they might have in private yards, they had not the same advantages as they used to have in being placed upon the establishment. It was perfectly true during the last three years they had laboured under considerable disadvantages of that kind. The establishment of the dockyards had been greatly exceeded, and it became absolutely necessary it should be reduced to the limits fixed by the Order in Council. He should be very glad if the Admiralty could comply with the reasonable desires of the artificers, because he knew their merits; and if they waited patiently for a short time, as the establishment was very nearly down to its proper number, a flow of promotion into it would take place, which he was positive would be satisfactory. Hon. Gentlemen should remember, when they talked of increasing the pay in the dockyards, that they had some 16,000 or 17,000 men to deal with, and to increase it even by 6d. a day, which was no very large addition after all, would make a difference of upwards of £100,000 a year. Speaking conscientiously of the matter, there was not the least doubt that the men in Her Majesty's dockyards were not paid at the full market value for labour of that de-
  1978
  scription. But then they had many advantages over the men in private yards. For instance, their employment was continuous; but in a private yard shipwrights were often discharged on a wet day, and received no pay. Again, the artificers of Her Majesty's yards, when hurt, were allowed to receive half their pay. Now, with respect to Mr. Chalmers. It was a rule with the Admiralty that no man should be rewarded for any experiment unless the invention was adopted in Her Majesty's service. Mr. Chalmers came to the Admiralty and proposed that his target should be tried. He was distinctly told if he wished to make the target it should have a fair trial, but it should be done at his own expense. The Admiralty were extremely guarded, because, if they entered into engagements beforehand with one inventor, they would be bound to do so with another, and they wished to act fairly towards all. Well, the target had shown considerable merits; but when the expense incurred came to be considered by the Admiralty, they decided that though upon the whole the invention was not available for the construction of Her Majesty's ships, Mr. Chalmers ought to receive the expense which he incurred to the Company who made the target. Beyond that they could not go. He had been asked to give more details about the Bellerophon. Her speed was estimated at 14 knots, while that of the Warrior was 14·33 knots. As to her armament, the intention at present was to arm her with ten 300-pounders and four 100-pounders, making fourteen in all. With regard to the question of patronage, it was a mistake to suppose that the Admiralty appropriated to themselves any of the patronage of the dockyards. No change whatever with respect to the entry of men had taken place; the superintendents were responsible for the various men employed, and there were certain fixed rules with regard to promotion, which were not departed from. He trusted that the hon. Member for Sunderland would not persevere with his Amendment.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, it was evident the Committee were not prepared to reduce the vote by so large an amount as £240,000, and he should, therefore, withdraw his Amendment, and would then make another proposition.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. LINDSAYthen moved that the

  1979
  Vote be reduced by £162,438, the amount of the increase this year on this Vote. It was clearly proved before the Committee that we were paying 200 per cent more for ships built in Government dockyards than they could be built for in private yards. He did not think the House would be justified in continuing such useless expenditure; he should, therefore, take the sense of the Committee upon this Vote.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,112,878, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Wages to Artificers, Labourers, and others employed in Her Majesty's Naval Establishments at Home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865."—(Mr. Lindsay.)
  MR. STANSFELDstated, in reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), who had said that it was unadvisable to spend money for labour and materials for the repair of wooden ships, that the Government meant simply to effect such repairs as were necessary for the commissioning of ships to replace others belonging to the cruising squadrons which had come home to be paid off; but the main cause of increase on the labour Vote was that provision might be made for the construction of armour-plated ships. The hon. Member had charged the Government with taking a large amount of money, and referred to certain small vessels which cost only £25 or £30 per ton; but it should be remembered that the large armour-plated vessels cost £50 a ton, exclusive of the expense of fitting them for sea. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) had observed that it was important to have not only an accurate account of past expenditure, but an estimate of the expense of work before it was commenced. That was the state of things already existing in the Controller's department. No repair was undertaken without an estimate being sent up from the yard; and if the repairs exceeded the estimate to a considerable amount the officers of the yard were called on for explanation. He had in his hand an estimate for the Royal Oak, sent up by the officers of the yard, as well as a statement of the actual expenditure. The estimate was £137,062, and the actual expenditure £136,362. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith), speaking of the Bellerophon, could not understand how it was that a vessel of less dimensions, unless of finer lines than the
  1980
  Warrior, could possibly accomplish the same speed. As the science of naval architecture could not be supposed to have already reached its highest and most perfect condition, he did not think it safe to assert that ships, even without finer lines and of less length than the Warrior, might not be able to go at the same speed. The Bellerophon had, as nearly as possible, as fine lines as the Warrior, but was 2,000 tons less; and though her nominal horse-power was less than the Warrior, she was able to work her engines to the same speed. As to the Dockyard Police, which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely), there was no analogy between their duties and those of ordinary watchmen in private establishments. They not only watched over valuable property scattered over a large area in the dockyards, but they served also as a water police and fire brigade. They took charge of the hospitals, and had superseded the military guards in the dockyards. They attended to the lighting and extinguishing of lamps, conveyed prisoners to the various gaols, and BO on. Their new duties engaged at least sixty men, and there was in consequence a saving of more than that number of men in other departments. During the years immediately preceding the introduction of the present metropolitan police, the cost of the dockyard police was about £38,000, and the increase in the present estimate was comparatively small, being only £450. The hon. Member for Sunderland, who was at first alarmed at the amount of information given in the papers, now complained that it was not enough. [Mr. LINDSAY: It is not the right sort of information.] He was at a loss to know what the hon. Member wanted. If his hon. Friend would only pick out of the labour chart one or two of the items of expenditure as to the building, conversion, fitting, or repair of ships, and challenge the accuracy of the account or the economy of the operation, he was ready to produce details on the subject to any extent and to probe the matter to the bottom. If his hon. Friend wanted, not a grievance but a remedy, he would accept that proposal. He could only say that the allegations of dockyard work being 100 and 200 per cent dearer than that done in private yards could not be supported by proof, and he would like to see them fairly tested. He trusted that the Committee would not agree to the Amendment, but

  1981
  would enable the Admiralty to maintain the efficiency of the ordinary cruising squadrons, and, still more, to complete with the utmost expedition the additions to the armour-plated fleet.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, the labour charts did not give the information which the Committee ought to have. The amount was given in a round sum, but no details were given to show that we got value for our money. The statements of the Dockyard Committee had not been answered—namely, that ships in our dockyards cost above 200 per cent more than those constructed in private yards. The Committee gave the names of eight corvettes, the hulls of which had cost £8 13 s. 10 d. per ton, whereas they stated that the same vessels could have been built in private yards for £2 16 s. per ton. For many years he had walked into the lobby in a minority with regard to the continued construction of wooden ships—those mighty slaughter-houses, which, after costing the country ten millions of money, were now utterly useless. He might be in a small minority now, but the time would come when there would be a thorough change in the Admiralty, in accordance with what had been pointed out by the Royal Commission and the Committee of Inquiry. He contended the Admiralty were not justified in spending money in the manner they were till the change so pointed out by the Royal Commission and the Committee of Inquiry had been carried out, and if he had but one hon. Member to vote for him, he would divide the Committee.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: As the hon. Gentleman is going to divide on this Amendment, I wish to state that I shall not be in the small minority which he anticipates with him. I do not feel very sanguine that the exertions of the hon. Gentleman—to which exertions I am willing to do full justice—will have the result of very much increasing the economy of expenditure under this vote. I think no Gentleman who has heard the debate this evening could do so without coming to the belief that it is the intention of the Admiralty to economize their large expenditure in our dockyards as much as they are able; and also that the representatives of the Department have given us very able explanations; and for the reasons they have stated—that this amount of expenditure was necessary for the public service—I cannot assume the responsibility of voting against it. Before I sit down, I wish to
  1982
  advert to what was said by the Secretary for the Admiralty as to the Chalmers' target. I am not quite satisfied with the explanation. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty said that the Admiralty, as a matter of course, was bound to tell the inventor that he must try the experiments with his target at his own expense. I do not think that answer was a wise one, because all scientific men had arrived at a conclusion that this was a new principle, and they all believed that it gave promise of great success. In these times of transition it is the duty of the Government to give every encouragement and support to the inventor who conies forward with an invention of any merit. I presume, however, in making that announcement, the Admiralty meant that the experiment was to be tried at his own expense if it turned out a failure. I cannot suppose that he meant to tell the inventor that he was to try the experiment at his own expense if his invention turned out a success and a great and valuable discovery. Had it not been for the great liberality of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto), it would not probably have been tried at all. Now, I hear that the money advanced by the hon. Member for Fins-bury has been repaid, but that £400 or £500 provided by the inventor himself has not been repaid. Now, this should be cleared up. I hope the representatives of the Admiralty will explain the matter, and if it is so, repair the injustice. I know nothing of the man; he told me his tale, and it did not seem consistent with justice. We are also told the target on the Bellerophon is nothing more nor less than the Chalmers' target, the Government having borrowed and applied it. This should be cleared up, as there is no doubt that the Chalmers' target is a valuable target, constructed on excellent principles, and if the target has been applied to the Bellerophon the invention should be fairly recognized.
  MR. KINNAIRDthought, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had done the utmost in his power to promote the efficiency of the public service by selecting, not one of his supporters, but a Gentleman from below the gangway, distinguished by his ability and his zeal for economic reform, to fill the place now occupied by the hon. Member for Halifax. He thought the least the hon. Gentleman was entitled to was a fair opportunity of carrying out his plans.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that

  1983
  if it were the fact that the Chalmers' target was the same or even a close approach to that of the Bellerophon, Mr. Chalmers would be undoubtedly entitled to be repaid, not the expenditure he had incurred, but to receive a reward. In truth, however, this was not so, for the construction of the Bellerophon target was the same in principle as that of the Warrior. It had longitudinal stringers which were fixed to the vessel, and as it were connected her armour-plates with the vessel herself. Mr. Chalmers' cellular principle was one of great ingenuity, and had shown a considerable power of resisting projectiles, but it did not form a structural part of the ship. If the right hon. Gentleman would call upon him at the Admiralty he would make this clear by showing him a section of the Bellerophon and the Warrior. He should be sorry for the public to suppose that the Admiralty had pirated Mr. Chalmers invention.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that whether or not the Bellerophon target was derived from Mr. Chalmers' invention, there could be no doubt that one of the most essential and valuable principles of the Chalmers' target was undoubtedly embodied in the Bellerophon. That was his opinion and also that of the Iron-plate Committee. Mr. Chalmers, he did not doubt, had the priority of design, and for that design he deserved the utmost credit.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 110: Majority 81.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  2. £69,205, Wages to Artificers, &c., Naval Establishments Abroad, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported this day; Committee to sit again on Wednesday.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.