The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-03-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, March 13, certain State papers
relating to the acquisition of the Island of Heligoland by
this country, and its subsequent government, were ordered
to be produced, after some discussion, in which Lords Rose-
berry, Carnarvon, Blachford, and Kimberley took part.
Lord Dunsany dirested attention to the present condition
of the Ironclad fleet, and the expediency of sacrificing speed
_iniume of our NAV" konelad.s to the attainment otgreater_
powers of attack and resistance, greater handiness in -
manceuvring, greater stability, less draught, and cheaper con-
structfon.—The Duke of Somerset su.2gested that the ques-
tion was one with regal' 1 to which it was best to
leave the Government wholly unfettered.— Lord Elphin---
stone explained that some of the latest ironclads
designed were to be of a slightly reduced speed, in order to
secure the other advantages referred to by Lord Dunsany.
Ile feared, however, that the tendency to increased thickness
of armour would prevent the cost of production becoming
Sheaper.—Lord Lauderdale having advised that too many
Ships should not be built in the present time of transition
from one class of vessels to another, Lord-Dunsany'S metion
was put and negatived.
The Duke of Bedford, in the absence of Lord Russell,
moved an AddresS for all Circulate' respecting slates in.
foreign countries; giving. ordersotdirectionCtO stlakAueen's ,
officers of the Army or Navy. The motion was agreeed to, and '
tielrl,ordahlps adjourned.
„
• Ist the Housx OF Comatoris. 31r. Matadi, inlanciver lee Mr
Noel, said that, after consulting with the Marquis of-Salia-:
bury, he_had come to the conclusion that it would-not be,
expedient to prpduce the despatches from India, or extracts, • ,
relefitg,* th 4 Rdyalf.Titles ;1141chisky ilecausa they were
trifled-up with political ionsietErations conterning the par-
ticular title to be assumed by the Queen, which had been
hitherto.scrupulbualy'excladsid from .the debate..' Upon
flits",!' me. Noet,gave noticeAliat la:eivite move a; Rpiolution
deciarine MO be Mexeedienttldi -Her Maiestrto'assume a
title so novel and unpopular.
On the motion for going into Committee of Supply.on the
Bent" - - Mr,

aval Estimates, Mr. __Ainck. who was second,. . by. .
Monk, moved a Resolution declaring that the practice of
placing at the head of the Admiralty Civiliaus,, who, from
their previous careers, cannot be conversant with the busi-
ness of that Department, is detrimental to the interests of
the Navy. He spoke for some time in support of his motion,
but for the most part was inaudible. He was understood to
rely, greatly on the authority of Sir G. Cockburn, and to
attribute such disasters as the loss of the Diaficera and of the
Vanguard to the practice of which he complained.
Mr. Disraeli, though not desiring to exclude Naval men
from this great office, was strongly opposed to limiting the
choice of the Crown as proposed. On such matters as the
building of ships, their armour and artillery, promotion, ern-
ployment, itkc., the First Lord was advised by his Naval
Lords, and they, as a rule, practically had the decision. But
a Firat Lord had other duties to perform- amongst others,
to represent.the Navy in Parliament, and that could be
efficiently performed only by a statesman of official expe-
rience who was qualified for a seat in the Cabinet. To the
argument that a Civilian First Lord led to frequent changes of
Administration and a propensity to jobbery, Mr. Disraeli
replied that these drawbacks would be rather more frequent
Under a Naval First Lord; and he quoted at some length the
opinions of the Duke of Somerset, Sir J. Graham, Sir F.
taring, Sir C. Wood, Lord J. Hay, and Sir J. Barrow, all
strongly in favour of Civilian First Lords, and pointing out
that the administration of Naval First Lords, such as Lord
Seppel and Lord St. Vincent, had been anything but suc-
cessful. As to a Civilian First Lord being the cause of the
loss of the Vanguard, Mr. Disraeli said he could have under-
stood the objection if it had been to placing a Civilian at the
head of the squadron, and probably matters would not have
been worse managed.
On a Division, the motion was negatived by 261 to 18.

Mr. Reed, pursuant to notice, called attention to the com-
Parative strength of OUF Ironclad Sea-going Navy and that
of the principal Naval Powers of Europe. At the outset he
disclaimed all intention of creating a panic, or inducing a
lavish expenditure; his object was rather to bring about
economy by coming to a deliberate conclusion as to the
strength at which our Ironclad Navy should be main-
tained. lie dissented altogether from the suggestion
recently made that we should stop building Iron-
clads and trust to Torpedo vessels and unarmoured Rams.
On the contrary, he asserted that we required more Iron-
clads, and he pointed out that, of the £200,000,000 spent
during the last 18 years on the Navy Estimates, only
£18,000,000 had been spent on lronclads. Discussing the
condition of our Ironclads seriatim, and excluding first one
• class of ships and then another for various reasons, he re-
duced the number of our sea-going Ironclads fit to be put in
line of battle to 12—viz„ five of the Audacious and Swift-
sure class, also the Hercules, Sultan, Bellerophon, Monarch
Penelope, Devastation, and Thunderer. To these, however, he
added three which would he ready early next year—viz.,
the Alexandra, Dreadnought, and Shannon, comprising a
tonnaga of 113,000 tons. In all, we had built 317,000 tons of
ironclad steamers, while the other European Powers had
built 697,000 tons. The six great Naval Powers—France,
Germany, Turkey, Russia, Italy, and Austria—possessed
98,000 tons of fighting line-of-battle ships : in other words,
the Navy of France joined with that of any other Naval
Power would be more than a match for us, and the three
Powers which had already joined together on the Lestern
Question—Russia, Austria, and Germany—had a stronger
Ironclad Navy than we.
Mr. W. Hunt agreed entirely with Mr. Reed as to the
value and necessity of ironclads, and it was the intention of
the Admiralty to go on building them, although he held that
141,p most pressing want at the moment was unarmoured
amp&
Mr. Goschen admitted that if Mr. Reed's views were even
aPProximately true it would be the duty of Parliament to
...seotapel the Government to make good our defects at once.
JaUt he denied altogether the correctness of Mr. Reed's mode
oi comparison and the fairness of the exclusions. The com-
parative fighting power of our Nawy, therefore, had been
lindolY depreciated.
Sir J. Hay agreed that sufficient attention had not been
Paid to keeping up the power of our Ironclad Navy. Mr.
Samuda Captain Price, and Mr. Brassey, also made some
observations, after which, at ten minutes past ten o'clock,
thS House went into Committee of Supply, and
Mr. Hunt made his annual statement on the Navy Esti-
mates. In the first plaee, he expla4ned that a change had
been made in the financial administration of the Navy, owing
to the fact that the late system had failed to detect suc-
cessive excesses of expenditure. Difficulties which had
been encountered in the manning of the Navy had
compelled the Admiralty to lower the boys' standard of
height by an inch, and to be less particular as to their educa-
tional requirements. The number of cadets would be about
80, and it was not intended to build a College, either at
Dartmoor or elsewhere, until a Committee had inquired into
the subject. As to the educational establishments at Green-
wich, there are 231 officers there, besides nine naval archi-
tects, and nine private pupils. Mr. Hunt mentioned various
minor points in the Estimates—such as the proposed estab-
lishment of the independent Torpedo School, the fitting
out of the Eurydice as a training brig, the transfer
of 1,000 men to the Dockyards, the improvement of the
Naval Reserves, &c,—and proceeded next to explain his
shipbuilding programme, taking credit incidentally for the
unusual fact that the Admiralty had built during the year
Within 450 tons of its programme The condition of our un-
armoured Fleet was most unsatisfactory. Many ships re-
quired extensive repairs, others were no longer fit for
repair ; and whereas 84 unarmoured vessels were re-
quired for reliefs this year, only 80 were forth-
coming. To remedy this state of things, he had
oraered six gunboats and two sloops to be built by
contract, without waiting for the authority of Par-
liament, and he proposed to contract fot twelve other gun-
boats, six corvettes, and four torpedo vessels, besides three
hew sloops of the Osprey class, to be built in the Dockyards.
This would give 4,000 tons of unarmoured ships, in addition
to 5,200 tons of iron ships. The net amount of the Navy
Estimates, after making all deductions, is £11,400,000 odd,
and the chief increase is in Vote 10, sec. 2, caused by the
increase in the building of unarmoured ships.

Mr. Goschen asked why more of the work of the year was
not performed in the Dockyards, and assumed that the ex-
clusive devotion to the buildin of unamourned ships was a
confession that the Admiralty was satisfied with the fighting
strength of the Navy. As to the excess of expenditure over the
Votes, he remarked that this only occurred in the time of Con-
servative Governments, to which Sir J. Hay replied that Mr.
Goschen and the late Government avoided this by never com-
e .

pieting their programme. They spent all the money, but did
not perform the work. Mr. Shaw•Lefevre. Mr. Reed, Captain
Price, and Mr. Goprley made some remarks, and Mr. Hunt,
In his reply, explained that in the Dockyards work would be
done on eight new Ironclads, eight corvettes, ten sloops,
two despatch-boats, and six gunboats, besides repairs on 41
ships.
After this the Vote for Men was agreed to, but on the
"Tote for Wages objection was raised to proceeding further
at so late an hour. Two Divisions were taken, in which the
Opposition was beaten by 105 to 63 and 104 to 62 • but the
Goyernment gave way before a third motion, and the Com-
.. InittEe was adjourned.
The Burgesses (Scotland) Bill passed through Committee.
The House adjourned at half-past one o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, March 14, Lord Halifax, in catl-
ing attention to the papers laid on the table by the Secretary
St State for India, complained that in a recent despatch,
' dated the 11th of November, Lord Salisbury had departed
' from the principle of governing India as much as possible in
India and for Indian interests. That despatch was not cal-
Ciliated to promote good feeling between the Indian Go-
Yernment and the Home Government. Deeming it reason-
able in the circumstances of India to preserve whatever
revenue existed, he argued against the expediency
of reducing or abolishing the import duty on cotton
goods, which he did not regard as imposed for
• Sae sake of protection, but for the purpose of re-
venue, yet Lord Salisbury, in his despatch, declared that
Provision should be made for the removal of the duty within
a fixed term of years, whatever might be the condition of
the Indian revenue. Upon this point Lord Salisbury and the
people of Manchester differed from the people of India,
Whose feelings deserved the first consideration, and he
Thought that nothing could be more dangerous than to
transfer, as the despatch proposed, the details of legislation
India to the Home Government in England. The despatch
would produce a bad effect in India, and he was convinced
that to hold India well in hand the influence of the
Governor-General and Council ought to be increased rather
than diminished.
Lord Salisbury said that in proposing to deal with the
eotton duties the Home Government warned the Goveremen
ef India not to run any risk of creating a deficiency: but he
remarked that the 'Leiter, revenue had been a rising revenue,
and on general principles the Cotton 'fax was liable to obj,c-
*ion, it being to some extent a protection duty. He was
therefore surprised that it was viewed with so much favour
by Lord Halifax. Lord Halifax referred to the teelings of
the people of India, though it was doubtful how he could
know what those feelings were. The vast mass of the Indian
population was politically dumb, and what Lord Halifax
Roust mean was not the opinion of the people of India, but
the opinion of the Bombay millowners, who, no doubt, took
strong views in favour of Protection. There was no tax, Lord
Salisbury remarked, which it was more desirable to remit
• than the Cotton Tax, whenever the finances of India would
Permit, the question being more an Indian than a Lancashire
one, for it was the Hindoo who would be most benefitted by its
remission, and'he, therefore, recommended the Government of
India at the earliest fitting opportunity to sweep it away. Pro-
seeding to state the objections he felt to the matter having
been considered at Simla and not at Calcutta, he said all he
Wad done was to desire that the Indian Government, before
they decided on any particular legislation, should let the
some Government know their views, so that the latter might
offer any necessary suggestions. The result then would be
that when full communications passed between the two
Geyernments, Indian interests would be represented, and at
the same time Imperial considerations would be borne in
Mind.
The Duke of Argyll showed the danger of depriving the
Indian Government of the initiative in legislation and
he maintained that the initiative could not proceed
from Downing-street. It wasobjectionable to recommend the
Cotton Tax as the first duty to be remitten, without con-
sidering the comparative claims of other duties for reduction,
and without considering the ol jections to the export duties.
He denied that there was anything improper in the matter
being considered and decided at Simla. In alluding to
the appointment of Lord Lytton as Governor-General of
India, be expeessed a hope that Lord Lytton would not c0n-
..., Sider himself the alter ego of the Secretary for India, but
Would deem it his first duty to consider the interests and
benefit of the people of that country from an Imperial point
Is.. of view, not overlooking the pressure of the Salt Tax in order
to Spend his first sixpence in the removal of the Cotton Duty
for the benefit of Manchester millowners.
The Lord Chancellor felt surprised that the Duke of
• Argyll should have justified the course taken by Lord
1/4 Northbrook in having decided the matter at Simla, and he
dennirredlo'llie cobcfuskinlhat tia legislation
• Was taken from the Government in India, fr all that was
requited was that.the Governor-General should propose his
measures in the first instance, and that before they became
Ire law they should be sent over to England for the purpose of
being considered. ..He 'could not conceive how any one
g Could maintain that a measure altering duties could be
' passed in India, and without the greatest incobvenience be
afterwards vetoed in England bythe Secretary for India.
Lord Lawrence blamed the course taken by the Govern- '
• , • '
Ment, which,,he argued, took away the initiative from the
Governor-General in Council, and with regard to the import
duty on cotton goods, he believed that the people of India
had no desire to see it removed.
The debate was continued by Lord Winmarleigh, Lords
_ Grey, Carnarvon, and Granville. .
The Duke of Richmond and Gordon expressed his belief
that the course pursued by Lord Salisbury had been a per-
. tectlY constitutional course.