The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-03-04 00:00:00

SATURDAY, MAR 4, 1876.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,
In the EfoIISE or Loitbs;lifilb. 28, lArd Ojarriariok WA on
the table certain official Reports on the subject of Me Mar-

. _
Lord Stanley of Alderley called attention to the state of
things in the Malay-Peninsula, and strongly candeamed the
conduct of the Government in reference to the proceedings,
which had of late occurred in that Peninsula Animadvert-
ing in warm terms on the deeds of cruelty which, he alleged,
had accompanied the warfare carried on in that part of the
world, he iuquired whether the military operations had
been undertaken in consequence of orders from the Home
Government, or by the direction of the authorities of the
Straits. He disapproved the appointment of Residents,
and, quoting a despatch from Lord Kinobsrley deprecating
unnecessary interference in the internal affairs of the
Straits, he argued that such a line of policy ought never to
have been departed from. He concluded by moving for ,
papers relating to the affairs of the Malay , Peninsula. s
Lord Carnarvon pointed out that all the papers necessary
for the proper understanding of the case were not yet before
Parliament, an nevertheless Lord Stanley of Alderley had
insisted on prematurely bringing forward the subject. With
rem rd to the system of Reeidente, his responsrbility Con-
sisted only in meintaining that system which bad been pre-
viously established. He could pot allow the strictures passed,
on the troops and military officers, who had performed theqi,
duty with great moderation and forbearance, to go forth uns
contradicted, and he energetically protested against the
Observations made use of by Lord Stanley of Alderley. With
regard to the policy of the Goverment, he contented him- ,
self with saying that he had no doubt that the course pur-
sued within the last few months had been the means of
saving this country from one of those little wars so much to
be lamented.
Lord Kimberley admitted that it was premature to discuss
the subject until the requisite papers were presented to the
House, but, with respect to the appointment of Residents,
he observed that this step was taken without his authority
by Sir Andrew Clarke. He quite agreed in thinking that the
manner in which the military operations had been carried on
refloated the highest credit on all engaged.
Lord Stanley of Alderley, in reply, disclaimed any inten-
tion of accusing the Queen's Regular Forges of acts of
crnelt r; •
The motion for papers having been negatived, their Lord-
ships adjourned.
• In the Rouen Or Cotatiotis, Mr. Biggar asked the First
Lord of the Treasury whether or not, in the opinion of the
Law Officers of the Crown, the proposed payment to Messrs.
Rothschild, one of which firm being also a member of this
House, of a commission of 2.t per cent, on the amount of the
Suez Canal purchase, brings the said, member within the
provisions of the Act 22, George IlLacain 45; and, it so,
what action the Government proposed to take on the sub-
ject.
. Mr. Disraeli: It does not appear to me that this gneettoii
ought to be addressed to Her Majesty's Government, and on
referring to the statute which the hon. member has men-
tioned, I am doubtful whether it ought even to be addressed
to the Law Officers of the Crown. I read in that statute that
which indicates that it is a question neither for the Govern-
ment nor for the Law Officers, nut one for Her Majesty's
Courts of Law. It says that any member of this
Howie offending under the circumstances referred to
Shall forfeit the sum of £5OO for every day on
Which he sits or votes in this House to any person who
shall sue for the tame in any of Her Majesty's Courts at
Westminster. In these circumstances, as it appears to be
open to any of Her Majesty's subjects to sue for that
pen alty ,I think it is not for the Government or for the
Law Officers of the Crown to give any information on the
subjeot (hear, hear), but for those who are directly in-
terested in the question.
Sir N. Rotchschild : Sir, I hope the House will allow me
to make a personal statement on this matter. (Cheers.) I
feel it my duty to declare that I am not a partner in the
house of the Messrs. Rothschild, of London. (Cheers.) I have
no doubt that the House will accept that statement from
me: but, if if is necessary, I am authorised by my father to
say that the deed of partnership of the firm of Rothschild,
both In London and on the Continent, can be inspected by
any one whom this House may choose to appoint. (Cheers.)
The Army Estimates were fixed for Thursday.
Mr. Goschen, in calling attention to the loss of MC'
Vanguard, premised that he had no wish to arraign the First,
Lord, and should have preferred had an explanation bieW''
volunteered ; but, after what had been said out of doors, the
• interest of the Service and jugice required that a full and
candid explanation of the circumstances of the deplorable
accident should be elicited. It would have been easy to
frame emotion which would have obtained the support of all
those who, for one reason or the other, disapproved the
Minute; bunevishing that there should be a candid and Iris-
Partial discussion, he had refrained from any hestile demon-
stration. Mr. Goschen then narrated, with great minute-
ness, the circumstances of the disaster, pointing out by
the way that the squadron had been organized. for
the annual training of the Coastguerd ; that Admiral
Tarleten had been appointed to the Admiralty for his ad-
mlniitrative ability, and not for services afloat; and, that
the cruise was very unskilfully organized for its purpose.
The squadron had not been four, consecutive days at sea
during the cruise, and had gone through a series of balls,
dinners, and festivities of all sorts, and the Vanguard, at the
time of the accident, had only her derot men on board,
having landed her Coastguard men at Dublin. The principal
Incidents of the cruise, with every act performed by the
Admiral and the officers of the Vanguard and Iron Duke
'which preceded and brought about the collision, Were
eubtnltted to sharp criticism, enforced by frequent re-.
terences to the charts, diagrams, currents, &c., as show-
ing a want of skill and seamanship. Passing to the sub-
sequent proceedings, Mr. Goschen instituted an elaborate
comparison between the finding of the Court-Martial—which,
be said, was a very strong Court—and the Minute of the
Admiralty. Admitting that the Naval Lords were men of
the highest professional and scientific knowledge, ard that
alley had not been moved by any pa; neat> for their col-
league, Admiral Tarleton, he maintain, at no amount of
arelanation could remove the point opinion that the
Minute was inconclusive and ina,le,i lei e, and did not do
justice. He found fault, also, with the omission not to hold
a Court-Martial on the Iron Duke. Finally, he asked Mr.
Hunt what had been done by the Admiralty to prevent these
disasters for the future, and to meet the deficiencies of s a-
ImanrhiP which had been revealed (moving formally for
Papers on the subject), and exhorted him, in his reply, to
discard the tone of "jaunty indulgence " of the Mansion
House, acid to remember that he was not defending himself
alone, but the Navy.
Mr. Hunt commenced his reply by remarking that, though
he still believed the Navy Estimates to be the proper time
for a Minister to take tic initiative of explanation, yet he
Was grateful to Mr. Goschen for giving him an earlier oppor-
tunity to vindicate himself against the persistent misrepre-
sentations with which he had been assailed during the
Recess. Replying first to Mr. Goschen's general comments on
the cruise, he assertel that Admiral Tarleton was as dis-
tinguished a sailor as an auministrator, and he denied
that the sole object of these squadrons was to practise
the Coastguardsmen. As to the Vanguard being
undermanned, the complement had been fixed by
Mr. Goschen himself, and he pointed out that one of the
great aims of these cruises was to gain acquaintance with
the Home Ports and to practise going in and out of harbour.
But the real question for the House to decide was whether
the Admiralty, in its nurse with regard to the Court-
Martial, had b'een intelligent, honest, fearless, and impartial.
To prove this Mr. Hunt discussed seriatim, with the aid of
charts and diagrams, the findings of the Court-Martial
which, he observed, were evidently the findings of a divided
Court), and explained the reasons for the course which the
Admiralty had taken with regard to each of them. The
isilitval Lords were unanimous, and if they were the
l
onest, capable men Mr. Goschen represented them
to he, why should not confidence be placed in their judg-
Meat? In the first place, the Admiralty denied that the
rate of speed had contributed in any way to the accident;
in fact, had the Almiral reduced his speed the squadron
would have gone on the shoals. Consequently, the Board
Was unanimously of opiniqa that the Admiral was not to
blame. As to Captain Hinkley, the Naval Lords were of
he that he was quite justified in leaving the deck when
ne did. The officer of the watch whom he left on deck dis-
obeyed the orders of his Captain and of the Admiralty in
e sheering out of his course But the chief person to blame was
Captain Dawkins, for reducing the speed of his vessel by one-
- half without receiving the Iron Duke's answer to his sig-
. naL If the speed lied not thus been reduced, the Iron
Duke, when she returned to her place, would have been at a
safe distance from her leader. Replying to the qnestion why
had net Admiral Tarleton been brought before a Court:-
Martial, Mr. Hunt said he had made up his mind, after a
Careful study of all the evidence, that the Admiral was not
•to blame, and it would have been cowardly to evedarespon-
sibility by sending 'him for trial on a charge. which the
Admiralty did not believe to be true. The Minute was Mr.
Ward Hunt's own, it embodied his sincere convictions on
. the merits of the case, and he accepted the full responsibility
for it. As to the future, Mr. Hunt said he intended to give
'this squadron more practice, and he trusted that the pro-
ficiency gained by practice would be the best preventive of
future disasters. - •
' Mr. Hanbury Tracy thought the Lords of the Admiralty
had made a mistake, and that there ought to have been a
- Court-Martial on the Admiral and Captain Mickley.
Sir J. May reminded Mr. Goschen that in the case of the
Agincourt and the Northumberland he himself had gone
• • outside the verdict of a Court-Martial, and had dis-
missed' two Admirals by an Admiralty Minute without
. giving them the opportunity of defending themselvell,
hi this case it was Admiral Tarleton's greatest nit**
fortune not to be brought before a Court-Martial, for he
could not have been in a worse position if he had been
found guilty. Ile deprecated strongly the practice of dis-
crediting Courts-Martial by Admiralty Minutes • and, die-
' • cussing the circumstances of the disaster, sir John main-
tained that the speed at which the squadron was sailing was
, too high for a fog.
. -Admiral Egerton joined in the regret that Admiral Tarle-
ton and Captain Buckley had not been allowed to go before a
Court Martial, and Captain B. Pim moved as an amendment
that an opportunity should he afforded to these two officers
of being tried before a Court-MartiaL
Mr. Norwood seconded the amendment, and regretted that
Mr. Goschen had not brought forward a definite motion,
which would have enabled the House to pronounce an opinion
en a disaster of which, he maintained, Mr. Hunt had not
• given a satisfactory explanation.
Mr. Bentinek held that the primary cause of the disaster
s was the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. He re-
petted, however, that the question had been raised, because
it was full of technical details on which the House was not
conesetent to judge. Admitting that Mr. Hunt had made
out a geani case, he nevertheless censured the Admiralty for
senctionitett, a high speed in a fog, and for not bringing
s Admiral lariSton to Court-MartiaL
Serjeant Sherlock defended the conduct of Captain
Dawkins. Captain Price, though censuring the Admiralty, '
believed that Mr. Goschen would have acted in exactly the
. tarne manner and would not have ventured to overrule his
Naval advisers. Mr. Brassey drew from the disaster the
.moral that our seamen required more training. Mr.
• • ate Hill, arguing on the same lines as Mr. Ward
tisallt, came to the conclusion that Captain Daw-
' lung and Lieutenant Evans were alone to blame;
and Mr. Samuda advocated further inquiry. Lord Eslington
declared the reason given by the First Lord for not sending
• Admiral Tarleton and Captain Mickley for trial—that they did
teat believe them
,blamable—to he entirely satisfactory, and
it allele officers felt themselves aggrieved, why did they not
• demand a court martial ?, ea.,' --

.

• Alter some observations from Mr. Morgan Lloyd,
Mr. A. Egerton. defended the Minute, showing that h
• fixed the blame on the debt shoulders, and replied also to
• some criticisms on the condition in which the squadron had
. seen sent to sea.
Mr. Seely moved the adjournmetit of the Debate, on the
Mound tuat more time was required to consider the
technical details of the question, but Mr. Disraeli objected
Pointiug out that all the circumstances of the cal,
had -now been exhaustively laid before the Houle
by the,., First Lord and his predecessor, and, as the
Government did not object to the papers moved for,
Ginschen would not be hindered from making a
more definite motion at any future time if he thought
Ilk • The Diarquis of liartington, on the understand-.
'big that further action was not precluded, recommended
',that the motion for adjournment should not be pressed. Mr.
Seely thereupon withdrew his motion, and. Captain Pim
'laving also withdrawn his amendment, Mr. GosCheta
Motion for papers Wasagreed to.
On the Report of Supply being brolight-up, further objec-,
,tion WaS taken to the appointment of Lord Hampton to be!
Chief Civil Service Cdmmissioner and to the £5OO additional.
Salary which it is proposed to pay him. Mr. Mundella, Dr.
Playfair, and Mr.' Lowe spoke against the vote, which was
defended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and on,a
division it was carried by 159 to 126.
The other business was disposed of, and the House ad-'
iourned at twenty-live minutes past one o'clock.
In the IIoUSE Lonbs, Feb. 29. the Archbishop of Can-
terbury presented a number of netittons from parishes within
the diocese of Canterbury with reference to the subjget oi
the laws relating to burials, and stated that in presentinr:
them he wished to guard against being supposed to agree
With the prayer of those petitions, which, as they did not
relate to any Rill before their Lordships' House, might be
Assumed to be dealing with general propositions rather than
With any distinct measure. lie wished to mention
that the two Houses of Convocation in the province of
'Canterbury were at the present time engaged in the
revision of those rubrics which had reference to
the burial of the dead, and in the discussion of
'those rnbries inauy questions necessarily occurred in re-
lerence to the law of burial in this country ; and it appeared
to him that it was very desirable that those who were en-
2rnated by Her Majesty'. license with the consideration of

•
•
,

. -

ected,
.1

Jblle
LOUS 0