The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING-, JUNE 23. 1855,

to which we adverted last week with praise, has not been so
favourably viewed by all the passengers on board the ship."
The Spectator, which was so good as to compare my conduct
on that occasion with that of certain steam companies, with
regard to which there was considerable noise at the period
in question, also contains this remark :
" Mr. Lindsay, the owner of the vessel which is named
after him, has indeed taken a course which fully sustains
the character of the British merchant. Understanding that
the ship was not perfectly fit for sea, he has recalled it, and
has taken upon himself all the consequent expense and loss.
He has not limited his liberality to telling his passengers
that they might seek passages in other ships at their own
expense, and merely ' without prejudice' to their claims
upon himself. He has not forced his master to prosecute
the voyage in spite of a certificate from the medical officer
that disease would inevitably break out within the tropics.
He must incur a very large sacrifice by his handsome treat-
ment of the passengers ; but that price will probablypurchase
its full worth to himself."
(Hear, hear.) I hope the house will excuse me for detain-
ing it so long with these personal matters, after the state-
ments that were made on a former night by the hon. mem-
ber for West Surrey. I will now turn, sir, to the main
points, to answer which I have risen. An hon. and gallant
gentleman, a member of her Majesty's Government, anight
or two ago, was pleased to say, with respect to some state-
ments made by me elsewhere, that they were "virulent
untruths." (Hear.) Now, I think I can satisfy the house,
in a very few words, and by the best of all testimony, that
instead of my statements being " virulent untruths," in-
stead of their being over the truth, they were actually
under the truth. I shall prove my statement from the
Government's own witnesses. The first case that stands
before me is that of a valuable steam-ship,which I said was
ordered to proceed from the Thames to Newcastle to take
on board some 12 tons of combustibles on her way to Ports-
mouth. My proof of that assertion, Sir, is a note which I
hold in my hand from one of the departments of the Ad-
miralty, and which I am ready to submit to the inspection
of right hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches. The
note runs thus :
" Sir James Graham insists the Robert Lowe shall be ready
to proceed to Newcastle to take on board about 12 tons of
combustible stores on Monday next, previous to her going to
Portsmouth to embark her troops. The owners are to pro-
vide provisions for 680 men for two months. Government will
supply tanks and water-casks and provide the water. There
will be from 400 to 500 tons of stores shipped as cargo. The
Admiralty expect every exertion to be used in getting the
ship ready for sea."
But the case, Sir, is really worse than I represented it ; for
in this note there is this passage, written in pencil, which
I did Rot read elsewhere :
" And that men be employed to work day and night ; in
fact, Sir James says he must not be disappointed, the service
being most urgent."
This note is dated the 25th of October, 1854, and signed
"H. J. Wentworth." So that it was not 12 tons of com-
bustibles that were to be taken on board. If that had been
so, there might have been some excuse for an order appa-
rently so absurd, because the articles might have been of
such a description that they could not have possibly been
stowed in any other ship except that which was to carry
them to the Crimea. But the fact was they were nothing
but 12 tons of iron tanks or cylinders, as they are called,
which were to convey combustibles. But, further, the
pencilled passage gives orders to the owners of the vessel to
work night and day. To do what? Surely to get these 680
men out? For I wish the house to remember that at this
time our army was very nearly driven out of the Crimea,
and more troops were urgently demanded at such a critical
juncture. But no; on the contrary, this vessel was actu-
ally ordered to go about 1,000 miles out of her way, and
her owners were pressed to work night and day to :get her
ready, that she might take on board 12 tons of cylinders.
(Hear.) If, however, the Government are not satisfied
that the note I have read is a sufficient proof, here is an-
other, from the dockyard at Deptford, and dated two days
afterwards, viz., the 27th of October, 1854 :

" begs to acquaint --, that in consequence
of a telegraphic message just received, it is not now intended
that the Robert Lowe should proceed to the Tyne, as the
cylinders intended to be shipped in her will be sent thence to
Woolwich."

These, Sir, are my proofs from the Admiralty's own wit-
nesses of the truth of my first statement, and they are at
the service of the Government. (Hear.) In support of my
next assertion I will adduce similar testimony, that of
their own letters. Here they are. I stated that a steamer,
valued at nearly 100,0001., was ordered to come round
from the Clyde to Liverpool, in order to be surveyed, be-
cause the surveyor would not go to her. Now, here is a
letter from the office of the Directors of the Transport
Service and Prisoners of War, dated Admiralty, June 8,
1855, and marked " Immediate." This case is actually
even worse than the one I stated, for it was not merely
that they ordered the ship to be sent from the Clyde to
Liverpool in order that she might be surveyed, but all the
way round from Greenock to Deptford. This was only so
far back as the Bth of this month. If the Government
wish me to rake up old stories, I can bring plenty forward,
but I say that in the present month of June a ship was
actually ordered all the way round the land from Greenock
to Deptford, in order that the Surveyor should go on board
and survey her., The letter states that they would accept
the ship, but only upon the condition that she was that
moment prepared to come round to the river Thames to
be surveyed and fitted for horses. The letter was signed
"E. Gifford." The owner remonstrated in a letter, dated
the 9th of June, as follows :
" Sir' The Columbian is quite ready; but do I understand
rightly from your letter that the ship is to come round to
Deptford before being finally accepted 7"
The owner was thunderstruck, as well he might be, at such
a proposal, and wrote to know what they meant. The re-
ply he received was the following letter
" Sir,—ln answer to your letter of this day, I am com-
manded by the directors of Transport Service to acquaint you
that they cannot spare their officer at Liverpool to proceed
to Greenock to survey the Columbian, as his duties require
his presence at his own port."
That is dated Admiralty, June 9, and signed "E. Gif-
ford." Here were cases in which the Government required
that the ship •should come to the surveyors, when it was
stated by one of the owners that bringing his valuable ship
from Glasgow to Liverpool would cost 4001. The conse-
quence was that the merchant, the owner of the ship, who
was a Manchester man and a man of business, was disgusted,
and gave an order to the broker to write a letter, of which
the following is a copy :
" No. 8, Austin-friars, June 12.—Sir, I was duly favoured
with yours of the 9th and 11th inst. in reference to the
screw steam-shp Columbiau. The owners declined to incur
the heavy expense of sending so large a ship round to Liver-
pool or Deptford without first knowing that your surveyors
approved of her, and they felt your demand to be so un-
reasonable and unbusinesslike, when at so small an expense
you might have sent a surveyor to the ship at Greenock,
that by their orders I have engaged this ship and the Euro-
pean elsewhere.--.Tony GLADSTONE,"

The fact is, that that very day the ship was engaged to the
French Government. (Hear.) Is not this a proof, by the
months of their own witnesses, of the truth of the state-
ment I made elsewhere? (Cheers.) Now, the next case I
think was the ordering of a steam-ship to go from Deptford
to Woolwich, because the engineers resided at Woolwich,
and it was more for their convenience to go on board there.
Sir. the thing is so monstrous that it is really difficult to
believe that it could have occurred. In this case I have no
correspondence, but if the house desires it, or if there is
any doubt about it, I am prepared to bring witnesses to
the bar of the house, who will swear to the truth of the
statement. In regard to the fourth statement, which
was in reference to sending out 3,000 horses for the use
of the army in the East, the hon. and gallant member for
Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) one night in the
house had remarked to me that he was very anxious that
3,000 horses should be sent out to the Crimea, as the ca-
valry regiments were very much in want of them ; but,
that, though the horses were ready, the Government had
over and over again told him that "they could not find
ships." It was about the let of April that the hon. and
gallant gentleman made that statement, but at the end of
that month he repeated it, and then said that the same
high authority had told him that they could not find ships.
On the Ist of May I wrote a letter to Sir De Lacy Evans,
in which I expressed my surprise at such a statement, and
I said I thought where there was a will there was surely a
way. I referred, and found that at the very time the Go-
vernment were telling you they could not find ships, a
friend of mine had in one letter offered to Lord Panmure a
magnificent fleet of, I dare say, the finest and swiftest ships
in the world, ready in 24 hours' notice to convey, at the
low rate of some 16s. or 17s. per ton register, 2,200 horses
from this country to the Crimea, and that the only an-
swer he received was the usual one—that it would be
considered. That day I suppose that important letter
was popped into the great big waste basket at the War-
office, or sent to the Admiralty and lost in the chaos which
there appears to reign supreme, for he hoard no more about
it. These ships have, of course, since that time all gone
on their voyages. Last night, in the house, you told me
again that the horses were still eating their heads off, while
our army prayed for them in the East, and that the same
Game kept them here —no ships, at least no suitable ships.
It is sad to think of all this perverse— what shall I call it ?
—perverse imbecility, if not something worse. I spoke to
my friend in the city this morning, and here is another
fleet all ready for your horses at about the same low rates.
They are all ships averaging from 1,200 to 2,100 tons re-
gister, and could carry in safety the number of horses af-
fixed to each. My friend gave me the names of the vessels ;
they wore capable of carrying2,66o horsee in all, and he was
prepared to procure them that morning for the Govern-
ment. (Hear.) Now, this is in point of fact based upon
conversation between the hon. and gallant member for
Westminster and myself, and I repeat here, in my place.
that that conversation did take place between us, that I
sent a letter to him of which here is a copy, which is at the
service of the Government if they want it—(a laugh)—and
that the hon. and gallant member acknowledged it at the
time with great courtesy. I therefore repeat the statement
here which I made elsewhere, and I have no doubt that
the hon. and gallant member is prepared to confirm it.
As to the question-of the offer of such ships having been
made to the Government, I presume that the Govern-
ment will not deny that fact, because I think they will
find the letter offering the ships, the date being somewhere
about the 17th, 18th, and 19th of Match. They will find
on inquiry that such a letter was sent to the War-office,
and that it was merely acknowledged and referred to as
having been handed over to the Admiralty, who never
answered it at all. Now, sir, there was another statement
which I made; I said that I doubted very much if the re-
turns which were lately laid upon the table of the
house were correct. This is much more important
than anything else I said. This house will remember
that on the 29th of January a return was ordered
upon a motion made by myself, of the stores sent to the
East, from the let of January, 1854, to the Ist of January,
1855, containing the nature of the service, the tonnage of
the vessels, the period at which they were sent out, and
when they arrived at the East. It is only some 10 or 12
days since we received these returns. The Government
have been five months making them up. The returns them-
selves are exceedingly important, considering the amount
of money the house had voted for the maintenance of the
army in the East, and that that army died unclothed, un-
sheltered, and unfed, and I was desirous to get at what
quantity of stores had been bought, and what quantity
had been sent out. Well, Sir. I doubted the correctness
of the returns, but the right hon. baronet, the late First
Lord of the Admiralty, told me, and not only me, but the
house, that the books of the Admiralty, he was prepared
t°sa3r, Were as well, if not better, kept than the books in
Austin-friars. I had good reasons for wanting to know
What quantity of stares had been sent out, and I think
the house will agree with me that I arrived at a
Sound
co lusion when I expressed that doubt, for the have G-
overnment been five months compiling these returns,
which, had they kept proper books, might have been made
out and laid npoti the table, at all events, within a month.
But what are the returns all
tall ? They do not give a
Tthheehouse wanteld'most
important.
ertiatnem of
t.
stnoreksn,owwhihcohwarme
utehhe
food,
bow much of the necessary articles of life, had be en sent
out ; but these returns give nothing more than the
quan-
tity of shot and shell,
gnu carriage°, and medicines sent

out last year. Why is it that a return has not been made
of the stores sent out to the army in the East, which was
the return for which the motion was made ? Now, as to
the correctness of the return. Here it is ; " a return of
the nnmber of transports engaged, with the work they
have done," ordered on the 29th of January. The house
Will remember that I was, constantly urging the Govern-
ment to lay this return on the table, but they have
taken five months to prepare it, and I believe that,
had it not been that they were so urged, we should not
have received it yet. The first ship I take up is the trans-
port 102, and I call the attention of the Government to
this particular ship because I find that the captain is now
in London, and he is willing to make an affidavit of the
truth of the facts which he has stated to me. That ship
is returned as having made 12 voyages between the 10th of
June, the time she left, in 1853, to the 31st of December,
1854, and to have taken so many horses and so forth,
whereas in the list which the captain has given me, instead
of 12 voyages, she is set down as having made 51 voyages
within these two dates. (Hear, hear.) The return says
that 713 tons of cargo have been sent, but I find that 1,063
tons were carried. Again, the Government says that' six
military officers have been carried in that ship, but I find ,
that she has really carried 190 officers. The return men-
tions three horses as having been conveyed in the ship,
but in truth she has carried 124 horses, 227 sheep, and
15 bullocks. The return also says she has carried
324 soldiers, but, in fact, she has carried no less than
4,306. (A laugh.) The return is silent as to her horse-
power, and cannot state the quantity of coals consumed.
But here is the consumption of fuel, day by day, which the
Government could have ascertained with very little trouble.
I say this is a serious matter. (Hear, hear.) What was the
object of the return? I wanted to find out what had become
of the 8,500,0001. of the people's money voted by Parlia-
ment. No information can be gathered from this return,
for I have a right to infer that if it is wrong in one in-
stance it is wrong in others. This return, then, I say, is
not merely waste paper, but it is worse, for it deceives the
public and the house. (Hear, hear.) I might call the at-
tention of the house to many other points, but I do not
wish to occupy more of its time than is absolutely neces-
sary. I must be permitted to remark that one thing struck
me in this return as somewhat strange, that while certain
ships are only getting 20s. per ton others are - being paid
31s. and 325. 9d. per ton. Here is one at 335. 9d. which
was reduced from that rate only in March, and that vessel
is described to me as a "hogged" ship, something like
broken-backed, or if any hon. member will go and look at
the floating battery now lying in Mr. Scott Russell's yard,
he will see what I mean, although of course to a greater
extent than in the case of the vessel I refer to. I find that
ship was kept on until March at 325. 9d., while magnificent
13 years' ships were earning 20s. only. Ido not say there
has been anything wrong, but I have been told the captain
, of that vessel went out to Constantinople with letters and
arranged the business out there. I know it will be said by
any member of the Government who may do me the honour
of replying to my remarks, that it was impossible to pay off
all the ships at that time. That is very questionable, for
most of the shipowners to whom the circular of reduction
was sent agreed at once to take 20s. I think I have shown
the house by the best possible means that I am not a tellerof
"virulent untruths." (Hear.) That statement, those words
have grieved me deeply—they have gone forth far and wide
wherever my name is known—not only in the seaports of
England. but in the seaports of the world—and that name,
which I trust and believe has been respected by others, has
been stigmatised by a member of the Government of Eng-
land as that of a teller of untruths. I will not reply by
any harsh words, but I declare that if the hon. and gal-
lant gentleman had taken from me all that which I have
gained by my industry—if he had taken from me all my
ships and all my gold, he would not have done me a worse
injury than by depriving me, as he attempted to do, of my
good name. During my career through life, from the state
of a humble seaboy to my present position as a member of
this house, I may have made some envious enemies, who
have endeavoured to stay me in my onward course, but no
one has ever impeached my veracity. Therefore I say sin-
cerely I have felt deeply that a member of the Government
should rise in his place in Parliament, and, by denouncing
me as a stater of untruths, should endeavour to rob me of
that character which I value above all price, which was
once my only capital, and which, if all my property
should be taken from me, would enable me to regain for-
tune and position—a character for adherence to truth.
(Cheers.) I will now bring my observations to an end,
although I could say much more on the maladministration
of the Admiralty; and, thanking the house for its patient
endurance, will conclude by saying, in the words of our
great poet,—
" Who steals my purse steals trash ; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name,
Robs Me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed." (Hear, hear.)
•
Sir C. WOOD (who was heard with difficulty) said that
much as he might regret the delay which the course taken
. by the hon. member for Tynemouth would occasion to the
business before the house, for his own part he was person-
ally grateful to him for the statement he had just made.
The hon. member, in another place, but in language stronger
than that which he had used to-night—(no)—had ques-
tioned the administration of the Admiralty, not only
since he (Sir C. Wood) had had the honour of a seat there,
but for a short time before. He certainly had expected that
the hon. member for Aylesbury, as leader of the adminis-
trative reform party, would have been better supported in
the house, and that the hon. member for Tynemouth would
have made whatever statement he wished to make in that
house. But the hon. member seemed to have forgotten the
axiom of English justice, that the accusation should pre-
cede the defence. He (Sir C. Wood) had never intended
to 'say that the whole of the hon. member's statement at
Drury-lane Theatre was destitute of foundation ; but
the hon. member had a somewhat lively imagination,
and so dressed up facts that he doubted whether those who
had only known them in their nakedness would recognise
then. (Hear, and a laugh.) Without further preface he
would go through the " facts" as stated in the speech 01
the hon. member. The first point he' had advanced at
Drury-lane Theatre was, that he had heard the hon. and
gallant member for Westminster say, "1 have been wait-
ing for more than a month to send out 3,000 horses for the
second division. I had bought these horses ; but the Ad-
miralty say they have not tonnage enough to carry them
out." Now (said Sir Charles) it is not true that 3,000
horses were wanted for the second division in the Crimea,
It is not true that the hon. and gallant general bought
them. It is not true that he was told by the Admiralty
that tonnage could not bo found for these horses. If the
hon. member (Mr. Lindsay) bad inquired as to the mode
of buying horses, he would have found that the second
allegation was incorrect ; but the statement is as much
ornamented as the proceedings at Drury-lane Theatre,
where many members of this house, who were not
there, were represented as having been present. (A cry
of "Question, question.") Do not the charges at Drury-
lane Theatre bear upon the question ? (Hear, hear.) I
have no doubt my hon. and gallant friend said something
to the hon. member with regard to the amount of horses,
and the difficulty of sending them out, but I do not think
it possible, nor do I think the house will either, that my
hon. and gallant friend could have said that which the
hon. member imputes to' him. But (continued Sir C.
Wood) how stood the matter with regard to sending out
horses since the lat of May. The Admiralty were in this
respect guided by requisitions from the Horse Guards and
the War-office. The number of horses on the Ist of May
for which transport provision was made was 2,030. The
requisitions in May for transport service were 394—up to
the let of June 386—provision being required altogether
for 2,810 horses. Now, since the Ist of May, 2,649 horses
have been despatched, thus leaving 161 to be provided
for. (Hear, hear.) At present there were fitting out horse
transports for the conveyance of 230 horses, and the
Admiralty had heard that there were four vessels on their
way home from the Mediterranean, capable of carrying 738
horses ; so that there was total provision for 968 horses by
ships either ready or on their way home. At the present
moment the Admiralty had horse transports capable of
conveying 5,550 horses. They were employed mainly in
the Black Sea and Mediterranean, and had conveyed Bri-
tish, French, Turkish, and Sardinian troops, and Spanish
horses and mules from Spain. The Admiralty bad had
every reason to believe that many of these transports
would have been back long ago ; but after conveying 2;000
horses for the Sardinian army, application had been made
for the transport of 1,000 more, and this had delayed the
arrival of the transports. The vessels to which the hon.
member for Tynemouth made reference, as being available
for the transport service, were sailing-vessels ; but the
cavalry officers remonstrated against the use of any but
steam-vessels, and the Government as far as possible
had yielded to that remonstrance. Perhaps the house
was not aware of the amount of service performed
this year in conveying men and horses. The house would
be pleased to hear that between the Ist of January and the
31st of May—and here he might say that tlle official re
turns were considerably below the truth—
Mr. ROEBUCK—Why should they be below the truth
They ought to be correct !

Sir C. WOOD—There was such a thing as overstating
the truth. (Hoar, and a laugh.) He took uncommonly
good care to keep within the mark, and trusted the hon.
member for Sheffield would always follow the example.
(Hear, and laughter.) Well, the official returns showed
that we had landed 90,000 men—English, Prench, Sardinian,
and Turkish. We had conveyed to the Mediterranean
13,000 men—thus making in a 11103,000 mon; and provision
had been made for 3,500 more. We had conveyed 12,460
horses, provision having been made for 1,590 mo result
which whole, 14,050 conveyed and provided for—a result
which showed that they had no reason to be ashamed of the
efficiency of the service. (Hoar.) The next statement
of the hon. gentleman had reference to certain vessels in
the Clyde ' • and here he (Sir C. Wood) must be permitted
to express his surprise that the hon. member had not been
more accurate—(hear)—from his intimate acquaintance
with the proceedings of the house in which he was a part-
ner. With respect to the European and the Columbia, the
hon. member said that he made a tender of one of them to
the Government, but the conditions attached wore such
s a the hon.he
that it was impossible to agree to them, and that ho after-
wards offered it to the French Government, who accepted
thlneermtohearnyalsl pu
ed
et oo ,n
dhi
tei
0 (Sirn
s,
it.o Wood) What
conditionsco u l o t y ; whether
or to the conditions of the charter-party, he could not
gather. The European was tendered in March at 608.6 d. a
ton, and the hon member asserted that the conditions were
so altered that no man of businesowoald have accepted them.
But why- was the offer rejected ? The Admiralty wanted a
horse transport, with a height of 7 feet 6 inches between
decks, and the offer was declined because the space between
decks was not sufficiently high. If he had wished to send
out ponies instead of horses the offer would not have
been so unreasonable—(a laugh)—but the sole condition
being that the vessel should be fit for the service, and that
condition not being complied with, the offer was declined.
The Columbia was offered to the Government in May, but
declined because it was not sufficiently high between the
decks. The charter-parties had been objected to, but in
order that they should not contain anything unreasonable
they were submitted to five shipping firms in London, and
the conditions were declared to be only such as were ne•
cessary for the protection of the Government. If the hon.
member had been inclined t‘• tell the whole truth, he would
not have omitted to state .what had taken place since he
(Sir C. Wood) came to the Admiralty. He had received
the hon. member in the presence of Captain Milne, and the
hon. member had said that the mode of transport adopted
by the Government was as good a mode as could be sug-
gested, and the mode least open to fraud ; and he also stated
that the charter-parties, as framed, were necessary for the
protection of the Government. The only suggestion. the
hon. member made was with respect to the mode of keeping
the accounts, but going into the next room with Captain
Milne he found that the very form he recommended had
been in force in the Admiralty for upwards of a year. But
that was not all, the hon. member wasso satisfied with the
charter-parties that he copied them, as would be seen by
his contract with the French government. The charter-
party between "Mr. Lindsay and his excellency the French
minister "• was not only an imitation of oufcharter-party,
but a servile copy. Everybody know that there were cer.