Lords Sitting of 12 April 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Bills of Sale (Ireland) Act (1879) Amendment* (29); Agricultural Holdings (England)* (30); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* (31).
Second Reading—Army (Annual)* (25).

NEW PEER.
Sir Frederick Beauchamp Paget Seymour, G.C.B., Admiral and Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty's Naval Forces in the Mediterranean, having been

31
created Baron Alcester of Alcester in the county of Warwick, was (in the usual manner) introduced.

WEST AFRICA—THE CHURCH MISSIONARY SOCIETY—ACTION OF AGENTS ON THE RIVER NIGER,

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET,in rising to call the attention of the House to the Papers presented by the command of Her Majesty on West Africa, in reference to the conduct of the agents of the Church Missionary Society, and to ask a Question thereupon, said, the case to which he referred occurred some years ago on the River Niger. Among the agents employed by the Society were many coloured people, all of whom had slaves; so that while this country was trying to stop slavery, both on the East and West Coasts of Africa, they had the Church Missionary Society employing, as agents, people who had slaves, and, worse than that, the Papers that had been presented to Parliament showed that those slaves were often cruelly treated by them, as the Superintendent of Police stated he had frequently reproved the missionaries for ill-treating their slaves. There were throe or four agents of the Society implicated in the transaction mentioned in the Papers, and among them were a Mr. Johns and Mr. and Mrs. Williams. Now, what happened to these unfortunate slave women? Why, they were oppressed and tormented, and when they tried to hide themselves, they were brought out and were flogged by the boys, who were instructed in the principles of Christianity, and treated in a manner he would not dare to mention to the House. It appeared that some red pepper was put into the excoriated places caused by the flogging, after which the unfortunate people wore supported or carried to their hovels where they remained in agony all night. While this was going on, the Native women heard their screams, and called out, and said to the Missionaries—"Surely this is not in accordance with your preaching." Upon which Mrs. Williams came forward and said—"She had bought the girls, and had a right to do what she pleased with them." During the night, one of the girls died in consequence of the treatment to which she had been subjected, and after the body had been
  32
  buried, and the people enjoined to say nothing about it, the order was given to ring the bell for prayers. If it had not been for the murder which was committed, no one would have heard anything of the matter. Now, this transaction happened in 1878, and these agents might have gone on for years torturing these unfortunate slaves but for certain inquiries which took place after the murder was discovered. He did not complain of the course the Government had taken in the matter, for prompt action had been taken by all the Departments concerned. The moment the Government heard of it, they did all they could; the Colonial Minister communicated with the Foreign Minister, and the Foreign Minister communicated with the Admiralty and the Law Officers, and then the Government and the Lord Chancellor interposed. But it was said that the transaction occurred beyond our Consular jurisdiction. However, after considerable difficulty, the people who had committed the wrong were condemned to punishment; but the best thing, in the Consul's opinion, that could have been done would have been to have hang the murderer on the spot, and that would have been a warning to those Missionaries who had so tormented the Natives. The Papers to which he had called attention were full of the Missionaries and their misconduct. This was a serious question, because one could not get up the River Niger, except at one time of the year, and there was, consequently, great difficulty in communicating with these places. Had the Government communicated with the Church Missionary Society, to the effect that they ought not to have had a station such a long way off, and out of the jurisdiction of the Consuls? There ought to be no station outside that jurisdiction. Now, what part of Christianity was it that supported slavery first, and put the slaves to torture afterwards, ending in murder? These things were a mockery of Christianity. But they were proved by the Papers on the Table, and could not be stopped while Natives were employed, who were supposed to teach Christianity. He would like to hear from the right rev. Prelates, whether they knew of these transactions, and what they thought of them. The Papers were before them. He thought nothing would have been known if the attention

  33
  of the Consul had not been called to the circumstances of the murder. Who, he asked, was responsible for these things? All these facts were known in 1879; but the Church Missionary Society took no notice of them at that time, and it was not until 1880 that the facts came out. They were responsible for what had happened, and no one else, as they sent these agents to those parts—160 miles up the Niger River. They ought to be prevented from sending their agents into these districts, which were very difficult of access to the Agents of the Government. At last, however, the Government sent a small steamer up the Niger; but the witnesses they collected got dysentery and fever. Was that the way to teach Christianity to the Natives? Let their Lordships look at the Papers and say whether Christian teaching was to be found there. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby) had talked about bringing in some Bill dealing with these matters; but, however that might be, in his (the Duke of Somerset's) opinion the Church Missionary Society ought to be prevented from sending their agents to places beyond the jurisdiction of the Foreign Office. He wished to know whether there were any means of stopping these missionary operations beyond the Consular jurisdiction and beyond the Foreign Office jurisdiction?
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, he had read the Papers to which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset) had referred, and he might be allowed to say that, as regards the story contained in them, there was nothing which had fallen from the noble Duke which was at all too strong; it was one of the most horrible stories which ever appeared in print, and was nothing less than a disgrace to humanity. In referring to that view of the case, he could not help, at the same time, expressing the satisfaction he felt at the manner in which two Departments of the State—the Colonial and Foreign Offices—when the matter was brought to their attention took it up, and had justice done. He was quite sure, in consequence, that the British name would be held in reverence in every part of Africa. An unfortunate girl had been done to death under very revolting circumstances. The case was taken up by the British Government, which paved the way for the conviction of the offen-
  34
  ders. All difficulties which lay in the way of obtaining a proper trial were surmounted; witnesses were brought from very great distances, the number of years that had passed were not allowed to constitute any serious impediment, the money was provided from the British Treasury, and the awful wrong that had been done was, as far as it could be, avenged in a manner which, he was sure, would meet with the cordial approval of their Lordships. But, having said that much on that part of the case, he felt bound to say that anything more unfair, anything more exaggerated, than the description which the noble Duke had given of the connection of the Church Missionary Society with this dreadful crime he had never heard. He wondered what the noble Duke would say if a subordinate of his committed a crime and the origin of it were to be attributed to the noble Duke, in the way in which he had attributed this crime to the Society. In the first place, the noble Duke had asserted that the Church Missionary Society knew of this crime and took no steps in the matter, and that it would never have been heard of had it not been for the British Consul. The noble Duke had not read all the Papers, or he would have seen that it was the Society, and not the Consul, who brought the matter to light. The man who brought the incident to the notice of the public was the Rev. J. B. Wood, the Church Missionary Society's own secretary. It was Mr. Wood who brought it before the notice of the Governor of Lagos. He was a missionary of the Society, and inquired into all the circumstances, and put in writing the information he had collected.
  TUE DUKE OF SOMERSET: Look at page 46.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, he should come to page 46. At present he had got no further than page 1, in which the statements he was making appeared. The noble Duke gave them to understand that the Church Missionary Society would have buried this matter, as the poor girl had been buried; but there was no evidence whatever of that. It was true that Bishop Crowther, who had heard of the case, had also made inquiries, and a Court, called a "Merchants" or an Equity Court, but an inefficient one, held an inquiry, and did not punish Mr. Johns; and the Bishop

  35
  assumed that the Court had come to a right conclusion; but he had no means of ascertaining the facts of the case, and had no other course open to him. It was not, therefore, until Mr. Wood made further inquiries, and reported to the Governor, that justice was done. Neither was it correct to represent these men, Johns and Williams, as missionaries in the employment of the Church Missionary Society. They were two Natives; one of whom was employed as an interpreter, and the other as schoolmaster, to teach the Native children. Those were their occupations. The Church Missionary Society did their best—like the founders of Christianity—in employing agents; but these two men turned out worse than could be expected. Out of the 2,000 or 3,000 agents in the Society's employ, it was not possible but that they should sometimes be mistaken in their estimate of the agent's character. Perhaps, the noble Duke also, in his own experience, had employed men who turned out to be much less trustworthy than he had hoped or expected. The noble Duke had suggested that the agents of the Church Missionary Society owned slaves. So far as the Papers showed, from the Report of the Governor at Lagos, the girl was not a slave; she had been redeemed but he was prepared to admit that she was treated worse than a slave—that, however, was not the point under discussion. Had the noble Duke read anything of the history of the West Coast of Africa? If he had, he would have seen what had been the great civilizing agent on that Coast. Had he read how many thousands of the savages the Church Missionary Society had converted, not only into Christians, but into civilized men? He (Earl Cairns) had recently read an extract from a commercial paper on the West Coast, on the subject of the atrocities, in which it was stated that they felt deeply for the Church Missionary Society, who had done so much for the Christian education of the people. Perhaps the opportunity would be seized on by its enemies to make an attack on that Society, but nothing could be more unjust than that. One of the greatest wonders of this generation was that the Church in that district, which, while it formerly had been dependent on the Society, was now self-supporting, and had itself sent out missionaries into the in-
  36
  terior. The crime that had been committed was, no doubt, horrible; but he deeply regretted that the noble Duke had, in a manner which he could only characterize as unlike the justice which generally actuated him, taken occasion to make an attack which, in his (Earl Cairns') opinion, was entirely unfounded on the Church Missionary Society.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not think that anyone could be surprised that the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) had brought the matter before their Lordships. The noble Duke had spoken with natural and justifiable indignation of those horrible and disgusting acts of cruelty, of the nature of which they were all aware. It was no part of his (the Earl of Derby's) business either to excuse or to accuse those who had the management of the Church Missionary Society, for their defence could be well left to the noble and learned Earl who had just spoken (Earl Cairns); but, if he were to state his own opinion, he should say that he did not see how any further responsibility could be cast on the Society in connection with this business than that of having being unfortunate, and perhaps injudicious, in the selection of their agents. But the criminals were not missionaries properly so-called. One was an interpreter and another a schoolmaster. They were both Natives, and if any blame was to be attached to the Society it was for placing them in a situation where they were able to bring this scandal upon their employers, and where they did not seem to be subjected to any control. With regard to the Question of the noble Duke, he did not think it necessary, nor did his noble Friend who preceded him in Office (the Earl of Kimberley), to give any special notice to the Missionary Body of the transactions, partly because they were fully cognizant of them from the first, and also because the whole of the transactions had acquired such a degree of publicity, and had been so widely noticed, that it would be superfluous to do so. As to Missionary Societies not being permitted to establish stations beyond the reach of British jurisdiction, he was sure the noble Duke, when he recalled what had been done not only in Africa, but in other parts of the world, would recognize the impossibility of imposing a restriction which was opposed to the principle on which

  37
  this country had always acted with regard both to missionaries and traders. Not only would such a restriction affect missionaries, but the principle involved in it would also be applicable to traders, for they went to all parts of the world beyond the reach of British law. Taking all the facts into consideration, he was of opinion that the disadvantages of the present system were very much overbalanced by the advantages. No one, so far as he could see, could possibly find fault with the manner in which the authorities had acted in this matter, though he allowed that there could be no question but that the proceedings were cumbrous and expensive. When, however, they took into account the remote situation of the place where these things occurred, and also the difficulty of getting together witnesses, it was not wonderful, he thought, that there had been so long a delay; it was rather to him a wonder that the ends of justice had been met, though at much cost of time and money. With reference to the punishments awarded, it could not be said that they were insufficient. One of the offenders was sentenced to 20 years' penal servitude, and the other to 18½ years, because he had already served two years in gaol, awaiting his trial. He might, perhaps, mention that an Order in Council was now being prepared, which they believed would simplify similar proceedings in future, should they unfortunately become necessary. He would only add that the Church Missionary Society, like all such bodies, was dependent on popular support and assistance, and that undoubtedly any scandal of this kind tended to create an unfavourable effect on opinion, and so to diminish its resources. It followed, therefore, that, in the interest of the Society, it behaved them to take all possible care that such a miserable and unfortunate occurrence should not happen again; and that he considered a sufficient security without the interference of the Government.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, after the able speech of the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns), in answer to the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset), I have very little to say; but, as having been intimately connected with the Church Missionary Society for nearly 50 years, and having taken a special interest in the West African Mission, your
  38
  Lordships will perhaps allow me to address a few words to you. Knowing the usual fairness of mind of my noble Friend the noble Duke, I am surprised, as well as grieved, at his having been misled into so unjust an accusation with respect to the Church Missionary Society. The Committee of that Society were, I need scarcely say, as much shocked as any of your Lordships on hearing of the terrible cruelties that had been committed at one of the outlying Missionary stations; and it was through one of their agents that the crime was first discovered and reported to the authorities. As a rule, these Native agents of this Society are well-conducted and reliable men; but, like all other Native agents, they require a good deal of constant supervision by Europeans, when they are located amongst their fellow-countrymen who are still unconverted and uncivilized barbarians. If the Society has been guilty of any fault, it has been in not exercising a sufficient superintendence and control over their Native agents, some of whom are stationed at considerable distances from any regular Mission station. It would, I think, be wise on the part of the Society, if, to use a military illustration, they were to call in their pickets, so as to place them nearer to their supports; and, in fact, this is what they are doing. The noble Duke's attack upon the Missionary Society reminds me of an anecdote told me by my friend, Bishop Crowther, the Native Bishop of these infant Churches. The Bishop had read, in Sir Samuel Baker's book, something to this effect—"That Africans were naturally incapable of receiving education; but that he must make one exception—namely, that good an able man, Bishop Crowther, whom, however, he suspected not to be a real African." Thereupon the Bishop invited Sir Samuel to come and stay with him at Lagos. Upon his arrival there, the Bishop first asked him to look at his face, and then say whether he had any doubt as to his being a real negro. The Bishop then asked him to visit Sierra Leone, on his was home, and to inspect the Negro schools there. This, Sir Samuel did, and wrote back to the Bishop, that he had never seen a number of children better educated, or more intelligent, in any part of Europe. Now, I should not ask my noble Friend to take a voyage to Sierra Leone, to ascer-

  39
  tain for himself what has really been done for Africa, through the missionaries; but I do ask him to test any one of the last Reports of the Society, where he will find recorded, and upon unquestioned authority, a full description of the work carried on.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he thought that the singular inferences which had been drawn by the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) from information brought out by the Society, in the first instance, with regard to these transactions, had been entirely shattered by the arguments of the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) and those of the noble Earl the President of the Church Missionary Society (the Earl of Chichester), who had last addressed their Lordships. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury) wished to say, lest it should go forth that the Church Missionary Society had been apathetic in the matter of slavery, that the Society, after notice given so long ago as 1857, had issued to West Africa in 1879 a most careful Minute, in which it was laid down that any of their agents holding slaves should ipso facto cease to be agents of the Society; and, by the same Minute, documents were required to be signed by the agents stating that they held no slaves. It should also be noted that two Archdeacons had been appointed to superintend the administration of the Missions—one in the Delta, and the other those on the Niger itself; and with regard to those gentlemen and their superintendence, the Society were prepared to take upon themselves any amount of responsibility. Moreover, a steamship had been placed on the Niger to be at the disposal of the Bishop and await his orders, so that he might be able, whenever he wished, to pass as rapidly as possible from one part of the diocese to another. Still further, in 1881, an English secretary was appointed as an adviser of the Bishop, and to co-operate with him; and, at the present moment, the Society were sending out an English medical missionary to support the Bishop and assist in making the service on the Niger as complete as possible. He only mentioned these things lest an impression should be conveyed that the Church Missionary Society had been in the slightest degree remiss. He would add nothing to what had been said as to their entire freedom
  40
  from responsibility in the perpetration of these atrocities by people happening to be in their employ. He believed, however, that the Society had done all that could be done in the matter in order to prevent its recurrence.

NAVY—THE NAVAL FORCES.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH,in rising to move for the appointment of a Select Committee—
  "To inquire as to the adequacy of the present naval forces of this country to meet the increasing demands made on their services, and such further demands as may hereafter arise in consequence of the augmentation of foreign navies,"
  said, that he had no desire to make any attack upon the Government. He was well aware that they had been restricted in their operations by the great money question. It had always been the tradition of the country that the Navy of England ought to be superior to those of all others in the world; whereas the fact was that the other great Powers were making more progress with their Navies than was being made with our own. If he could prove that that was so, he thought that the Committee for which he would move ought to be granted. The conditions of the Navy were quite different from those of that arm of the Service in former days. It was now necessary to keep portions of the Fleet at nine different stations over the whole globe in order to protect our trade. The number of ships, moreover, which were actually available for service was not that which we were represented to have—in fact, it was only a paper Navy, for many were included in the list which had only just been laid on the stocks, and which would not be ready for three or four years to come. [The noble Lord read statistics showing the number of iron-clads, armoured cruisers, corvettes, and vessels for coast defence already built or in course of construction, and stated that the number of Marines was 12,400, of which 6,000 were on shore, and that the Dockyard workmen numbered 18,000; and then proceeded to explain the naval condition of France.] There were at the present moment 10 French iron-clads ready for sea. There were 11 other vessels, wooden ships, pronounced by competent authorities to be capable of meeting in action

  41
  a large number of the vessels in the British Navy. There were 18 very large and powerful iron-clads included in the French Naval Estimates—not in the backward state in which the vessels were in our own Dockyards, for eight of them would be fit to go to sea this time next year, and the remainder of them were promised to be ready by 1885. In 1885 there would be 39 French vessels ready for sea, while our own programme was 41, of which a very large proportion would not nearly be ready for sea by 1885. To carry out their programme, the French had voted a large sum of money for building purposes; and they had increased their Vote for men by 1,100; and they had 23,000 Dockyard men, as against our 18,000. The French were also building ships by contract, and were pushing forward those contracts with the greatest zeal and industry. They had 43,000 officers and seamen, and 26,000 Marines. He asked, therefore, their Lordships to consider what the relative condition of this country and France would be in 1885. Whether as regarded ships or men, it could hardly be said that the English Navy of 185 would be such as to on-able us to cope with that of France, should we unfortunately be engaged in hostilities with that country. Moreover, looking back to history, there was no reason to suppose that the Navy of France would act alone. Such a case happened when the French Navy took possession of the Spanish Fleet in an unexpected manner in 1805; and, had it not been for her naval superiority at that time, England would not have been able to meet France at Trafalgar. This country was always in a state of unreadiness, and had always experienced the misfortune of being behindhand with warlike preparations when war broke out; and that remark applied to the Navy as well. In 1805 war could not be said to have taken England unexpectedly; but yet she had to build hurriedly about 40 ships, of which some were built in India, some in our own Dockyards, and others were adapted from the Indian Merchant Navy. It should be remembered that first-class iron-clads could not be constructed in less than five or six years; and it was out of the question to use merchant steamers, for they were quite unfit to perform the duties of men-of-
  42
  war. Speaking of the unpreparedness of this country at the time of war breaking out, he would remind their Lordships that the country was lulled to sleep by the great victory of Trafalgar, with the result that in 1813, when the war with America broke out, England found that she had allowed America to build ships with which she could not cope. Isolated instances, no doubt, occurred—such as the fight between the Shannon and Chesapeake—which showed the superiority of the British seaman; but still the British Fleet suffered seriously. It had become customary to throw discredit upon prestige; but a reverse to the British Navy would be disastrous to the country. If the Navy were defeated at sea, the means of communication with India would be cut off, and the great Colonial Empire of England would be imperilled to an extent that would entirely damage her position in the European world. He wished, further, to mention to their Lordships a source of weakness he had noticed in the Navy. The weakness to which he referred was that naval officers now had to deal with guns with the powers of which they were not fully acquainted. Under the present system, guns were selected for the Navy by the Woolwich authorities, who knew nothing at all of naval matters. In the French Navy the guns were selected by an Ordnance Committee of naval officers, who knew what the requirements of naval gunnery were. Another point to which he wished to refer was with regard to the fitting-up of masts and yards, formerly used by sailing ships, to vessels which in action would be most impeded by them. In addition to the French Navy, the Italian had also attained a considerable degree of efficiency. Moreover, of late years Germany was making great strides in the direction of becoming a Naval Power, while China, Japan, and the United States possessed vessels of great power; and there could be no doubt that foreign nations would have an immense superiority over England in the event of their forming a combination against her, which was not impossible. In the event of war, a crowd of vessels would be poured forth to prey upon the commerce of this country, and it was of the greatest importance that we should have the means of protecting it. He trusted that what he had said proved there was no

  43
  justification for the hope expressed by the Prime Minister, when he said that the Navy of England would be equal to all the other Navies of the world. The country was not justified, at the present moment, in entertaining any such hope with regard to the state of its Navy, either as it was, or as it promised to be at the period to which he had referred. The noble Viscount concluded by making his Motion.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire as to the adequacy of the present naval forces of this country to meet the increasing demands made on their services, and such further demands as may hereafter arise in consequence of the augmentation of foreign navies."—(The Viscount Sidmouth.)
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, that the noble Viscount (Viscount Sidmouth) was not singular in the opinion he had expressed that the present state of our Navy was not such as it ought to be. That was the opinion, not only of many officers of professional distinction, but also of those who had served at the Admiralty, and who would be considered by the noble Earl at the head of that Department (the Earl of Northbrook) to be entitled, from the weight of their authority, to speak on the subject, and to be received with consideration and respect. A letter had recently appeared in The Times, written by Sir John Hay, in which the danger we ran of being outstripped by the French in naval matters was clearly shown. There had been times when our Navy had been in a disgraceful state, in consequence of a craze for economy; and, now, whenever complaints were made about the inefficiency of the Navy, the stereotyped reply was that we could not afford to do more than was being done. The French, however, it should be remembered, did not allow any such argument to influence them, and they were always prepared to make greater sacrifices than ourselves to secure a strong Navy. In fact, France went so far that she sacrificed her commercial marine to her Navy. It was rather remarkable that France should be taking such pains to rival our Naval Force, for she was much less dependent for her commerce upon her ships than we were. It must be because the course of history had taught them the value of powerful Navies. Recent events must have convinced everyone what an embarrassing position we should have been in if the
  44
  policy of crippling the Navy had prevailed for the few preceding years. If it had, in what position would our Fleet before Alexandria have been, if the Fleets of France and Italy had combined to attack us?
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, the subject brought before your Lordships this evening by the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Sidmouth) is one of great importance, and merits the great amount of interest which is felt in it. With reference to the words the noble Viscount quoted, as having been used by the Prime Minister, perhaps he will be able to tell me where and when the Premier made the observation? I saw it myself in one of the periodicals of the day; I think it was quoted at the head of an article in one of the reviews—I think The Nineteenth Century—but I have been unable to trace it. Can the noble Viscount inform me where it is to be found?
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH,in reply, said, his conviction was that the remark was made by the Prime Minister at a public meeting. He had seen it several times reported, but had not been able to trace it.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I am in the same difficulty. I have seen it quoted somewhere; but I have been unable to trace any authentic authority for the quotation; and I think it would have been better, perhaps, if the noble Viscount had refrained from using a quotation which he was not able to verify. My Lords, I have always felt it an exceedingly delicate course, and one I should prefer not to enter into, to make comparisons of the strength of the Navies of England and France. We are, fortunately, on the most friendly terms with our neighbours across the Channel, and it is not desirable, I think, to make these comparisons. At the same time, I can assure the noble Viscount that the comparison which he has given to the House, from the want of sufficient information, is not borne out by the facts of the case. The Board of Admiralty accept their responsibility in this matter, and it is their duty to ascertain what are the real facts. I am not about to make any elaborate comparison tonight, but I will allude to one matter on which the noble Viscount laid great stress. He compared what would be the state of the French and Eng-

  45
  lish Navies in 1885, and I have seen a similar comparison in the newspapers made by a gallant Admiral, whose figures the noble Viscount appears to have used. Now, there is a great error in the comparison. There are put down for the year 1885, 10 ships belonging to the French Navy, none of which have been launched up to the present day, whereas, on the other side of the comparison, there are put down only two English ships that have not been launched. We know at the Admiralty that if a ship is launched this year, it is exceedingly unlikely that that ship will be ready for sea before two years. With machine guns, and all the complicated appliances required to fit out an armour-clad of the present day, a very considerable time is required, after a ship is launched, for getting her ready for sea. In that way I explain the extraordinary statement which I have seen in the newspapers, and which I suspect has been the reason of the noble Viscount's mistake in the assertion that in the year 1885 there would really be any equality between the Navies of England and France. I do not wish in the least to say anything offensive to our neighbours across the Channel. They have in their discussions, and in the Reports of their Committees, especially in the Report of a Commission presided over by no less a man than M. Gambetta in 1878, frankly admitted that England stands unrivalled in regard to her Navy. I hold that no Government of this country—and certainly not the present Government—would for a moment allow any nation to take a position of equality with England at sea. Such a policy would be discountenanced by whatever side or Party might be in Office. There can be no doubt, as the noble Viscount pointed out, that for the last six or seven years great activity has prevailed in France, in the construction of ships. But this activity is due to a policy, which has been openly declared, and the reason of which I have no scruple in stating, because it has been stated in authentic documents which have been laid before the French Chamber. During the Franco-German War—as your Lordships may well understand—the French Government were unable to devote the average attention and expenditure to their Navy, added to which they have taken a different course to ourselves in respect to
  46
  the construction of their iron-clad ships. Almost all the French iron-clads, up to a recent date, have been built of wood; whereas we have adopted iron and steel from a much earlier date in our construction. Those of your Lordships who have a knowledge of the subject are aware that wooden ships have not the same length of existence as iron and steel vessels; and, therefore, it was the opinion of a Commission of the French Chamber in the year 1872 that, in a certain number of years, a considerable number of wooden armour-plated ships in France would become unserviceable, and that it would be necessary to replace them with new ships. The programme laid down in accordance with that Report is being gradually carried out by the French Government. No one who has considered the question will think that the gradual fulfilment of such a programme ought to give rise to any susceptibility on our part. Now, that is the history of the increased expenditure on the part of France in ships during the last seven or eight years. That being so, what has been the actual tonnage of ironclad ships acquired by England and France from the time this increased expenditure on the French Navy took place? It must be recollected that when the expenditure began, this country was in a position of great superiority to France in respect to iron-clad ships, and that the expenditure of France was in order to bring up her Navy, which had been reduced to a low ebb, to a moderate and fair strength. Notwithstanding this exceptional expenditure, I find that the tonnage of the ships launched in the years referred to, and added to our ironclad Navy, was greater than the tonnage added to her Navy by France, and, therefore, there has not been, as some people suppose, a greater addition to the strength of the iron-clad Navy of France than of that of England during that period. This, I hope, will satisfy the noble Viscount that the figures he gave with regard to the assumed superiority of the French Navy compared with our own are not accurate. I will take another point which the noble Viscount has raised. He made some comparison between the Navy Estimates of England and France; and on this point, he will admit, I trust, that the money spent on the labour employed upon the construction of ships may be taken as a fair

  47
  test of the work being done. With respect to that, the total sum taken in the French Estimates for 1883 for the cost of labour engaged upon construction and repairs is £877,272; whereas we are taking a sum of £1,219,146 for those purposes; so that the noble Viscount will see that the sum we have taken very much exceeds the sum taken in the French Estimates; and if the sums taken for construction alone are compared, it will be found that we take a larger sum than the French.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: Is the rate of wages the same in the two Navies?
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: Although the rate of wages may differ, the results obtained for the same expenditure is probably much the same; but, at any rate, the money we take in our Estimates is considerably in excess of that taken in the French Estimates, and that shows, I think, that the noble Viscount need not suppose there is any extraordinary endeavour to increase their Naval Force on the part of the French Government. No doubt, in France a different system is pursued from ours; and it has been the habit there to lay down a considerable number of ships at one time, and, therefore, the general impression is that a great increase is being made in the number of ships, whereas many of the ships to which allusion has been made have been a long time on the stocks, and some have not even been laid down. I saw, not long ago, in one of the newspaper statements, one ship counted as to be ready in 1885, which had not been launched, and another included in the same statement which was to be laid down in the slip from which the other was to be launched. I will just allude to one other point in the comparison the noble Viscount made, because mistakes are constantly made upon the subject. The noble Viscount drew a comparison between the English and French forces of Marines, and said that there were 26,000 French Marines. That may be true; but they are not, in any way, the same force as our English Marines, who would in time of war be capable of manning guns afloat, and of becoming a most valuable reserve to the Navy; whereas the French Marines are simply Colonial troops. I do not like these comparisons; but I thought I was forced to give one or two striking instances to show how difficult it is to make these com-
  48
  parisons usefully. In comparing the two Navies, any officer or gentleman who wishes to make it as bad as possible for us, can omit a lot of ships from the list of our Navy as being obsolete, and can leave ships of the same class in the list of the Navy he is comparing. I can assure the noble Viscount I have carefully considered the question, and I do not share his apprehensions. I am bound to say that I think it is desirable to increase very materially the amount of construction; but I must explain to your Lordships that, in saying that, I by no means wish to lay any blame upon the Board of Admiralty which we have followed, because, some years ago, it was discovered that greater power was produced in a gun by means of the use of slower powder, which very much revolutionized the construction of ships, by making it necessary to place much thicker armour upon the ships. Then, again, there have been important improvements in engines and other matters with which I need not trouble your Lordships; all of which changes may have delayed construction, and I have no doubt they had a material effect upon the policy of the Board of Admiralty which we succeeded. But, however this may be, the present Board of Admiralty decided to increase the amount of armour-plated tonnage constructed, not at an extravagant rate, but at a rate more in accordance with the rate of former years. The figures which I will quote to your Lordships will show that there has been a considerable increase in armour-plated tonnage since the year 1879. Whereas in the year 1879–80 there were 7,427 tons' weight of hull of armour-plated ships constructed, in the year 1880–1 the total was increased to 9,235 tons; in 1881–2 to 10,748; and in 1882–3 to 11,500; while in the year 1883–4 it is proposed to bring the total up to over 12,000 tons. That will show that the Board of Admiralty are not unmindful of the necessity of increasing the number of armour-plated ships. The noble Viscount alluded to another and most important matter, the question of guns, and he is right in thinking that there has been considerable difficulty in obtaining the right sort of gun. These difficulties have existed in adapting the new inventions in gunnery to the service of the Navy; but, owing to the exertions of the Ordnance Committee, in

  49
  which officers of the Service, as well as some of the most distinguished Civil engineers in the country, have assisted, and also to the able officers at Woolwich and Elswick, we now stand in a better position in that respect than we ever stood before. The noble Viscount seems to think that we are putting guns on our ships of inferior power to the guns put on board the French ships.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: I referred to the difference between breech-loading and muzzle-loading guns.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: At all events, I have seen it stated, and I am glad to have the opportunity of saying, that there is no foundation for this statement. The 43-ton gun we are to mount in the ships we are now completing for sea may be said, speaking roughly, to be of the same power as the gun being put on board the French ships which are now being completed for sea. In the ships now building of the Rodney class we propose to put a 63-ton gun, which has a charge of 625 1bs., and a projectile weighing 1,250 1bs. The muzzle energy is 36,415 foot tons, and the penetration of wrought iron at 1,000 3'ards 28·6 inches. The gun is to be constructed of steel, with steel hoops. This powerful gun we propose to place on board some of our ships; but the Admiralty thought, powerful as the gun is, that it would be desirable to have a still more powerful one, and we therefore propose to place two 100-ton guns of much the same pattern as those constructed by the Elswick Ordnance Company for the Italian Navy. These guns will be supplied by that Company. At the present moment we feel considerable confidence as regards the working of these large guns; and it was very satisfactory to find that at Alexandria, the machinery on board the Inflexible answered admirably. The trial of the 100-ton gun constructed at the works of Sir William Armstrong, which took place at Spezzia, gives us much confidence in the breech-loading mechanism of that gun, and it is of the same type as that which we propose to use. I may say, generally, that the condition of the Navy in respect to guns is more satisfactory now than it has been for some time past; but I should be very over-confident if I stated that the system of breech-loading gave us as much satisfaction as regards safety as the old muzzle-loading system;
  50
  and it is most creditable to all concerned with the manufacture of our present guns that no accident involving any loss of life occurred during the engagement at Alexandria. It is necessary to employ the breech-loading gun, but it is a more delicate weapon. In former years the Government was reproached with not introducing it earlier, but I am not sure that the delay was a disadvantage, because meanwhile the weapon has been improved, and the country has thus been spared a considerable expenditure upon guns which would have been inferior to those now being made. The noble Viscount expressed some doubt as to the value of merchant cruisers in time of war, and suggested that they would be useless against armour-clad vessels. They would not, it is true, be of use in attacking ships of war heavily armoured; but armour-clad vessels are not the only ships we shall have to meet in war. There are many ships which are not armour-clad at all, and there are very few armour-clad vessels indeed so protected as to be unassailable by such vessels. In my opinion, therefore, merchant cruisers will be of great value. The noble Viscount has spoken of the position of this country as a great Naval Power. That position by no means depends entirely upon the number of our ships; what it mainly depends upon, in my opinion, is the gallantry and the knowledge of the officers and men in the Navy, and the state of training in which, they are kept. Next, in importance, come the ships and the other naval appliances; and after them comes the power of this country in the possession of a flourishing Mercantile Marine, and its unrivalled capacity for manufacturing steel ships and all kinds of naval appliances. These, for the most part, are made in England, and therefore, in my opinion, we never yet occupied so powerful a position as a Naval Power as at the present time. I trust that the Motion for a Committee of Inquiry will not be pressed to a division, and I think your Lordships will not be inclined to accede to such a Motion. A matter of this kind ought, I venture to think, to be left to the Executive Government of the day, unless it appears from the facts of the case that the Ministry of the day does not recognize the necessity of keeping up the force of the country to a proper state of

  51
  efficiency. Her Majesty's Government feel that it is necessary to maintain the naval supremacy of this country; and with this object we have very considerably increased the expenditure upon armour-clad ships and guns, that increase amounting to between £800,000 and £1,000,000 per annum since we came into Office. I therefore trust that this Motion will not be pressed. In answer to the noble Viscount regarding the armour of four new ships, I may tell him that the Impérieuse and Warspite are armoured, the armour on the sides of the belt is 10 inches, and above water 9 inches, on the barbettes 8 inches. The Mersey and Severn are not armoured; but they have decks protected by steel, and a conning tower with from 8 to 9 inches armour protection.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, he thought that, having regard to the rapidity with which foreign Powers had increased and were increasing their Navies, it was of the greatest importance that this country should be prepared for war. There was a feeling prevalent in the country that, in the event of a general war, England did not possess a sufficient number of vessels to protect its own coasts, besides placing a Fleet in the Mediterranean, guarding the Colonies, the Mercantile Marine, and the bread supply. He thought the appointment of the suggested Committee might have allayed the anxiety felt in this connection. Great difference of opinion also existed among persons of authority as to the armament of our ships, and as to the mode in which our ships were constructed, many authorities condemning the present system of box-building. Moreover, reforms were necessary in the Constructive Department of the Admiralty; some endeavours should be made outside the Department to secure the services of the best designers in the country. He much regretted the noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) would not consent to the Motion of the noble Viscount.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH,in replying to the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook), said, he thought the public ought to have the the whole of the facts relating to the Navy placed before them, and that if a Committee were appointed these facts would be fully brought out, and full information would be obtained as to the
  52
  strength of the Navies of foreign Powers. Many distinguished naval officers had expressed their alarm at the present condition of the British Navy as compared with the Navies of foreign Powers. He was certainly not satisfied with the statement of the noble Earl; but, having regard to the small number of noble Lords at present in the House, he would not press his Motion to a division.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

POOR LAW (ENGLAND)—LADY INSPECTORS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, in the event of future vacancies among the poor law Inspectors, they will consider the propriety of appointing one or more lady inspectors, thus folio wing a precedent set in the case of the late Mrs. Nassau Senior, whose work and reports in the years 1873 and 1874 were of much use to the department of the Poor Law? said, that all matters pertaining to good Poor Law administration were of importance, and none more so than the question of the physical training and moral development of children in workhouses and workhouse schools. Able and conscientious as were the Poor Law Inspectors, there were many matters pertaining to the condition of pauper children, especially female children, which were better managed by women than by men. In 1873, the late Mrs. Nassau Senior, a lady of great ability, moral courage, and most humane disposition, was appointed by Mr. James Stansfeld, the then President of the Poor Law Board, to duties tantamount to those of a Poor Law Inspector. This lady inquired into and reported upon the condition, management, health, and treatment of children, especially female children, in our great Metropolitan pauper schools, of which, at that time, there were 17, though one, the school at Limehouse, had since been closed. The number of children was then, he believed, 8,535, of whom 3,844 were females. This Report, which was sent in to Mr. Stansfeld on January 1, 1874, comprised many valuable suggestions upon such matters as (1) classification of children, (2) sanitary conditions, (3) moral and industrial training, (4) school arrangements, (5) dormitory ar-

  53
  rangements, (6) food, (7) exercise and play. In addition to this inspection in the Metropolitan area, Mrs. Senior visited orphanages, industrial schools, reformatories, and "Kindergartens" in England and Scotland, besides similar establishments in Paris. The whole of this Report was most valuable. It was preeminently women's work to look after children. He might be asked what definite proposal did he make? Subject to financial considerations, he should be glad to see four Lady Inspectors appointed as supernumeraries to the existing staff of Poor Law Inspectors, whose work and duties should be strictly confined to the care and supervision of the children of both sexes in our workhouses and workhouse schools. One might be assigned to the North of England, one to the East, one to the West, and the fourth to the Metropolitan district, with the Southern counties. If four were too many, he should be satisfied with two appointments, one for the Northern and one for the Southern area of the Kingdom. In these days, when women had proved their ability and eminence in the literary, artistic, and scientific world, he did not doubt but that, with fair opportunities, they would win fresh distinctions in grappling with and overcoming want, neglect, disease, and poverty, which were, unhappily in too many cases, the only patrimony inherited by the poor children who were the inmates of our workhouses and pauper schools. He would press this question very earnestly on the President of the Local Government Board.
  LORD CARRINGTON,in reply, said, that if any ladies were appointed as suggested, such appointments would be rather supplemental to than in substitution for the present staff. When the opportunity offered to appoint a Lady Inspector, the Board would be happy to consider the propriety of making such an appointment. Although he could not pledge the Government to any definite course of action, he might say that the services rendered by Mrs. Nassau Senior were highly appreciated by the Board, which was of opinion that in large workhouses, schools, and ships, good work could be done by ladies. It was satisfactory to find that in the past year eight out of 12 Unions in the Metropolis had elected ladies to serve on the Boards of Guardians. While the Government were unable to comply with
  54
  the wish of his noble Friend, he could assure him that they were fully sensible of the value of the suggestions he had made, and that they would bear them in mind.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Law relating to Agricultural Holdings in England—Was presented by The Lord Vernon; read 1ª. (No. 30.)

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under the Elementary Education Act, 1870, to enable the School Board for London to put in force the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acts amending the same—Was presented by THE LORD PRESIDENT; read 1ª; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 31.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.