Page images
PDF
EPUB

only two sloops, two frigates, and three gunboats fit to send out as reliefs to foreign stations. In the years 1864 and 1865, twenty-five paddle steamers, twenty-two screw steamers, and five paddle steamers of a large size, making in all fifty-two vessels, were got rid of from the navy. Fifty-one gunboats were likewise got rid of within those two years, making together upwards of 100 vessels put out of the service as useless. I make no complaint of that; but I say the fact that upwards of 100 vessels having been got rid of within the period I have named, fully accounts for a deficiency. The policy of the present Board has been not to spend large sums of money in the repair of obsolete vessels. [Cheers.] I am glad to hear that cheer, and accept it as the Committee's approval of the Government policy, which has already been commended by the hon. Member for Pontefract. I think I should surprise the House if I were to recount the sums spent in repairing vessels which, after all, were not fit for the service. Compared with the prime cost of these vessels the sum spent in repairing them has been immense. We have, therefore, determined to abandon repairs of this nature, and devote the labour thus saved to the construction of new vessels of a better type. This is the answer to the regret of the hon. Member for Pontefract that we were proposing to build so many small vessels; it is necessary that we should build a good many in order to supply the place of others returning from foreign stations. I now come to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire upon a former occasion, with regard to the policy of maintaining our squadrons upon foreign stations, and also to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Pontefract upon the same subject this evening. The latter referred to three periods, giving the extent of our foreign squadron in 1846, in 1856, and in 1867. That, no doubt, answered the hon. Member's purpose very well; but I think it would be better, considering what has been said upon the matter, to give a full statement, and refer to what has been the policy of the country not at periods of ten years apart, but during the last seven years. I hold in my hand a statement which I have had prepared of the number of ships and men and the aggregate tonnage of the ships on the 1st of January in each year, from 1860 to 1867 inclusive, and I should like to give the House a few of these items. This

statement, unlike that of my hon. Friend's, includes the Mediterranean and all foreign stations, and I find that, although from 1860 to the present time the change has not been very great, it has been in the direction of a gradual reduction, so that the amount of our force on foreign stations has been considerably less during this year than it has been during any former year since 1860. My hon. Friend adopted the plan of mentioning the number of men ; I will mention the tonnage as well as the men. In 1860, then, omitting the tens and units, the men numbered 35,700, and the tonnage summed up 189,800. In 1861 the men numbered 38,500, and the ships' tonnage 202,400. In 1862, the men 48,900, and tonnage 209,300. In 1863, the men 32,500, and the tonnage 187,300. In 1864, the men 32,200, and the tonnage 190,300. In 1865, the men 28,900, and the tonnage 173,600. In 1866, the men 27,000, and the tonnage 167,500. In 1867, the men numbered 24,800, and the tonnage 160,500. Thus, the Committee will see that the aggregate force upon all our stations in the year 1867 is considerably less than it has been during the last seven years. Now, I will refer to that portion of the hon. Member's statement concerning a squadron which excites greater interest and greater doubts than any other-I mean the West African squadron. With regard to that we come generally to the same result. In 1860 the men on the West Coast of Africa numbered 1,900, and the ships consisted of 11,400 tons. In 1861, the men were 1,900, and the tons 10,800. In 1862, the men were 2,100, and the tons 13,700. In 1863, the men were 1,900, and the tons 14,700. In 1864, the men were 1,800, and the tons 14,800. In 1865, the men were 1,300, and the tons 14,300. In 1866, the men were 2,300, and the tons 17,900. In 1867, I find the men are reduced to 1,500, and the tons to 12,700. So that this year the West African squadron is smaller than it has been in any former year since 1860. [Mr. CHILDERS: Does the Return include the flag ship ?] The figures I have quoted do not include the flag ship; but with that addition, even the comparison I have drawn would be very little altered. I have made these remarks, Sir, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), referring to my noble Friend behind me (Lord Henry Lennox), alleged, as I understood him, that it was improper to

MR. CHILDERS said, he wished to ask whether the addition to the second-class naval cadets would not really bring the numbers up to the point where they stood before the first-class cadets were reduced?

maintain a foreign squadron at so high a | which it is incumbent on us to do, and rate. The hon. Member for Pontefract that is to be very careful not to introduce (Mr. Childers) has offered a similar opinion into the navy a larger proportion of officers to-night; but I ask him how it happens than is likely to be required for the service. that, during the whole seven years in which Without wishing at all to deviate from that he or his Colleagues were in office, similar proper absence of party spirit which has doubts with regard to the propriety of characterized this discussion, I must say I these foreign squadrons seem never to have think the late Board of Admiralty was not crossed their minds. The present Govern- so cautious in this respect as it might have ment succeeded to office only last summer, been. The first thing we had to do on so that I do not wish to claim credit for coming into office last summer was to make having reduced the foreign squadrons to a reduction of one-third in the number of their present condition. But I wish to point cadets entering the service, through the list out to the Committee that the recently of cadets, midshipmen, and sub-lieutenants announced views of the right hon. and hon. having become so crowded. We also found Gentlemen were not declared until the in- that the assistant clerks had been admitted vigorating air of the other side of the House to a very imprudent extent, so that the list prompted them to doubt the expediency of was clogged; making it hopeless for them continuing these foreign squadrons, which to rise in their profession or to have justhey maintained in greater force and in tice done to them; and we were therefore greater strength during their term of office; obliged to put an entire stop to the entry though I do not in the least blame them of them. I have felt it my duty, owing to and their Colleagues for having done so. my connection with these Estimates, to The question, however, remains as to how make these remarks; and I have to thank far we ought to maintain these squadrons, the Committee for the attention which it and to what extent, if any, we can afford has accorded me. to reduce them consistently with carrying out the services they perform in contributing to maintain our position as a maritime Power. If we had not squadrons in various parts of the world, we should be unable properly to check piracy, nor should we be able to carry on other national objects. There is only one more point to which the hon. Member for Pontefract alluded, saying a great deal that is most painfully true, but which has been said very often before -namely, the encumbered state of the Navy List. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the immense burden we have annually to support on the half-pay, the retired, and the reserved lists, which, as he observed, extend over nearly every letter of the alphabet. He knows well how great is the difficulty connected with this subject; for when men have once served the country, you cannot cast them adrift. This state of things results from the great naval power which we were obliged to maintain during the great war; for on the return of peace we found our Navy List so large that we were never able to bring it within the limits that could have been desired. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion - namely, whether some plan might not be adopted for buying out these officers, and so effecting an economical settlement without do. ing them injustice, is not a novel one; and I confess I think it would be very well worth trying. But there is another thing

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, that when he spoke of the undue admission of cadets, he spoke not so much with reference to the aggregate of officers on the Navy List as with reference to the midshipmen and sub-lieutenants, and other ranks more immediately above them, which choked it up and prevented all hope of promotion.

MR. STANSFELD moved that the Chairman report Progress.

MR. CORRY said, he would not then press the Committee to proceed further; and he would fix the resumption of the Navy Estimates for Friday evening. With reference to the flag ship on the African station, the Admiralty had been obliged to send so large a ship there because they had not at the time a smaller one for that particular duty. It was proposed, however, as soon as possible, to replace the Bristol by a smaller vessel, and transfer her to another station.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT REPEAL
BILL-LEAVE.

MR. MACEVOY said, he moved for leave to introduce a Bill for the repeal of this Act. As he understood no opposition would be offered at that stage, it was unnecessary for him to trouble the House with any observations.

upon the land, the Church, and the education question."

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh said

"It should be repealed; but if the discussion of it just now would have the effect, as I believe it would, of drawing off attention from matters of much more practical importance to Ireland, it ought to be postponed."

MR. O'REILLY said, no one could feel In those sentiments he entirely concurred. more strongly opposed to the Ecclesiastical The law was, he believed, useless and unTitles Act than himself-one of the first just, and he hoped the good sense of this acts of his political life being to aid in country would in time-and that a brief depriving of his seat a personal friend who time-assent to its repeal. He saw, howhad not voted against that measure. He ever, no good practical result which was could not but ask, however, what would be likely to flow from raising the question at the practical result of this Bill? If the the present moment. If the hon. Gentlehon. Gentleman were able to say that he man could elicit from the Government a had any assurance from Her Majesty's distinct expression of their opinion on the Government on the subject, or if he could matter, then he might be doing good serhold out any hope of bringing the mat- vice. From those on his own side of the ter to a successful issue, he would have House, he required no such expression of his best support and assistance. All, how- opinion, because in 1851 they had the ever, that the hon. Gentleman had stated courage to stem the popular current, and was that the Bill would not be opposed at to speak words of truth. If the Governthe present stage. He had been anxious ment were now merely to say that they to know what was the opinion entertained would not oppose the introduction of the on this point by the Roman Catholic eccle- Bill, he held that such a statement would siastical authorities in this country and in be no avail. He, under those circumIreland, who felt most sensibly the injustice stances, could see no advantage which was and pressure of the Act. He had accord-likely to arise from the hon. Gentleman's ingly had communications from the Cardi- proposal. nal Archbishop of Dublin, and also from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel, and he had communicated personally with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. He was therefore able to say that, much as they felt the injustice of the Act and Dr. Manning had remarked how hard he felt it on him, as a Christian Bishop and an Englishman, daily to be obliged by a higher duty to violate the statute law of this country-the present proposal was no suggestion of theirs, and they did not feel it part of their duty to raise the question at this time. They feared that to do so would only lead to an idle agitation which would hinder more practical and serious measures. He could not express this feeling better than in their own words, and he would therefore, with the permission of the House, read two very brief extracts. The first was from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel, who said

"This is not the time to ask for a repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. That question can

very well wait for a while. At present the Irish Members ought to concentrate their energies

SIR GEORGE BOWYER said, he should rejoice to think that there was any prospect of success likely to attend the Motion of his hon. Friend at the present time. They must all do justice to the generous motives which impelled him to make this Motion, to undo a great wrong inflicted upon a mistake and a misunderstanding. The Roman Catholic hierarchy of England and Ireland were stigmatised as guilty of a misdemeanour in doing that which was only their duty in accordance with their religious convictions. He believed a great mistake had been committed in passing the Act which it was sought to repeal a statement the justice of which he hoped the good sense of the English people would lead them before long to acknowledge. He did not, however, think that public opinion was ripe for the change proposed; and he therefore thought it was desirable that his hon. Friend should not press on his Bill at present.

MR. WHALLEY said, he understood that Archbishop-he begged pardon, he meant-Dr. Manning had expressed his regret that he was obliged to break the statute law of the land every day, and if

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

the House of Commons and the Govern | House, and the point to which it reduces ment allowed the law to be so broken, he itself. For if the circumstances are not should be disposed to second the proposal favourable, surely it is not to be desired by for the introduction of the Bill. He wished any rational man, whatever his views may to know whether the Government meant to be, that he should stir up controversy and support this Bill? He contended that the animosity unless he thinks a practical obconcessions which had been made by the ject can be attained. I ask myself, Is it present and previous Governments had to be attained? I confess the answer never been fairly submitted to public entirely depends on another questionopinion. which there is no one here to reply toMR. GLADSTONE: I am only desirous What are the intentions and views of Her of making a remark which appears to me Majesty's Government? I am unauthorized to be called for by the speeches which have to speak for Gentlemen on this side of the proceeded from my hon. Friend the Mem- House, or to utter more than the opinions ber for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly), and the I venture to form; but I do venture to hon. Member for Dundalk (Sir George form an opinion that as far as this side of Bowyer). Prima facie, this Motion is one the House is concerned, the hon. Member for relieving from certain civil disabilities who makes this Motion will find little diffithe prelates of the Roman Catholic Church culty in the prosecution of his enterprize in this country, and we have had rather a to a successful conclusion. But what are striking declaration on the part of Gentle- the intentions of Her Majesty's Governmen, than whom no other two Members in ment? Will the second reading of this Bill the House can be better qualified to repre- and its later stages be supported or not by sent the opinions of those prelates-that Her Majesty's Government? If they will although they are convinced that the law be, then I say, by all means let us go inflicts upon them a wrong, yet, in view of forward with the Bill. If it will not be the public interests and of more pressing supported by the Government, then, in demands, they do not wish to see the time my opinion, having such adversaries in his of this House occupied and the temper of face, the hon. Gentleman's undertaking so parties embittered by discussions which opposed will be rendered hopeless by reason may, after all, prove fruitless. And I will of that opposition. If there is not the never sit still and hear a declaration so assurance of support, let the hon. Gentlewise as that which the hon. Members have man make his Motion, and I am not the signified as proceeding from those affected man to oppose it, but it will be singularly by the Act, without doing them the simple sterile in its practical results. We cannot justice of saying that it does them the ask any Gentleman opposite, who is probahighest honour both as regards their judg.bly not in possession of the views of the ment and prudence. In respect to the Cabinet, to speak for them; but it would be Bill itself, I confess on this occasion, I desirable that my hon. Friend the Member have on one point the satisfaction of coin- for Longford and his friends should make aciding with my hon. Friend the Member it their business to ascertain the intentions for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) who feels of Her Majesty's Government as to the -and feels justly-that it is a very con- course they mean to pursue with respect to siderable scandal that we should have a the ulterior stages of the Bill. law of this description, which law no man volunteers to put into execution. I do not depart in any particular from the opinions which sixteen years ago it was my duty to express in this House at the time of passing this Act. The question then was, whether what I, for one, thought was a grievance, should be inflicted. The question of grievance to the parties who were the objects of the Act was a very material point. Another material point was the evil which ensued when a law was permitted to exist, which law could not be enforced. But is the time favourable for the introduction of the Bill of the hon. Gentleman? That is the whole case I wish to represent to the

SIR JOHN GRAY said, that during the last two days there had been floating rumours about the lobbies that Her Majesty's Government would support the Bill, and one of the organs of the Irish Executive, The Irish Times, had stated, on information received from this side of the Channel, that they were determined to do so. Now, in the absence of any Member of the Cabinet, he should be glad to hear from the Solicitor General for Ireland whether there was any truth in those rumours.

MR. REARDEN said, he had not expected to hear such expressions as had fallen from the hon. Member for Longford

(Mr. O'Reilly) with regard to an Act commendable postponement of their own which would be a disgrace to Roman case to that of the laity; but for his (Mr. Catholics as long as it remained unrepealed. M'Kenna's) part, not having before him He had more confidence in the support of the communications which elicited these Her Majesty's Government to this Bill letters, he thought he would show greater than some Members on that side of the consideration for the distinguished writers House. He could remember a time when by giving his heartiest and most unqualithe throats of Roman Catholic Members fied support to the Motion of his hon. were very near being cut in the streets of Friend the Member for Meath, and by London. From that time the Liberal party doing his utmost to remove from the under Earl Russell had never been a strong statute book an Act which was not only one, and but for the influence of the right a perpetual insult to Catholics, but a rehon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), it would proach to any Administration which perhave been smashed up. They were as mitted it to remain on the statute book much buried politically as Lazarus was simply to offend the well-disposed, and to bodily, and the right hon. Gentleman ac- be violated openly. complished their resurrection. If Roman Catholic Members did not support this Motion they would have a sorry account to give to their constituents.

COLONEL GREVILLE said, he agreed in the opinion that the action of the hon. Member for Meath on this occasion would lead to no result. After the opinion expressed by the Roman Catholic prelates, who had taken a part on the side of law and order, he thought that the House had a right to know what course the Government of whom he saw two Members though not members of the Cabinet present would pursue in respect to the Bill.

MR. M'KENNA trusted that nothing which had been said or quoted by the hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to the introduction of the Bill would prevent its being read a first time. It was not usual at this stage to press the Government for an expression of opinion; but as hon. Members had it quite in their power to elicit the opinion of the Government at another day, he hoped that they would not prevent the Bill from reaching the point when all would be able to test the disposition of Her Majesty's Government. For his own part, he could not help believing that much of the indisposition of hon. Members to the introduction of this Bill arose from tenderness of feeling towards the head of the late Government, whose supporters they were. The noble Lord the head of the late Government, who now sits in "another place, was the author of this disgraceful Act, now sought to be repealed, and it was perhaps a pardonable consideration for his feelings which induced the hon. Member, who had quoted letters from distinguished prelates, to write to them in such a strain as to elicit their most

MR. NEWDEGATE said, that the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on the Bill would be very important. Those who valued the independence of the country, and the declaration made by Lord Russell on this subject, must object to the repeal of this Act. It was to assert that independence that the whole of the nation was roused. The people were most tolerant, but he believed it would be a rash act to repeal this law. The thirty Irish Roman Catholic Members were representatives of a foreign power in that House, and the people desired a reform of the House of Commons mainly because they found one party pitted against another, who were ready to throw out any bait to secure the votes of Irish Members. The feeling was growing strong in the country against that course of proceeding, and it was prudent on the part of the hon. Member to seek the repeal of this statute before the House of Commons should be reformed.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, that no one would support the Motion of his hon. Friend sooner than he would, if he thought that his hon. Friend was the authorized representative on the occasion of the Roman Catholic body, or, if he saw any chance of its obtaining the support of Her Majesty's Government; but, in the absence of any Member of the Cabinet, he did not think it would be right to call upon any Member of the Government present to express any opinion on it. One of the most unhappy recollections of his Parliamentary life was connected with the passing of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, which he had, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend near him, resisted. He would suggest that the second reading of the Bill should be fixed for the earliest day possible, in order to give the Government an opportunity of stating their views.

« PreviousContinue »