South Wales Daily News

.>i-_4' --== MR. R. =:,■ M.P., AT pr<»r, ^r r 1 1J J.L >■ '-V V A. i'J. HE NATAL A i v.jUCaNTIL c MAlHNE. THE NECESSITV JF. R A POWERFUL I i?LEET. SEVERE CENSURE OF A MEMBER OF THE GOVERNMENT. [FROM OUR OWN REPORTED] Last night Mr E. J. Reed addressed his constituents at Pembroke. The honourable gentleman spoke in the ISth»PJrwfeo»P»S Mr f M,P|: enthusiasm prevailing throughout the proceedir.,g,4. FE WI'U>S/^T S?OSRSRI T Mr T ^nttrm Mr G- W. Sinnette, Di. Bryant, the Rev. MrSalmon, etc. On first makinjhigav.pearance on the platform Mr Reed was greeted with an outbreak of enthusiastic cheers.. The CHAIRMAN, in opening the proceedings, expressed the pleasure which it gave himself and that assembly, to Welcome Mr Reed, and to see him looking so remarkably well. Mr Reed was so well known, through his speeches and his writings, as well as by his labours in the House of Commons that it was needless for a chairman to say touch in introducing him to any audience. Mr i .d was not only a representative of those United Boroii,s,but of the nation generally. (Cheers.) Since Mr Reed had become their representative, he (the chairman) bad travelled a good deal in the West of England, and he had had conversations with a great tuany intelligent gentlemen who looked sharply into political affairs, and he found that the Pem- broke Boroughs had become the subject of a great deal of envy, for he was told by gentlemen in other towns how glad they would be if they could get Mr Reed to repre- sent them. (Cheers.) How in the world did you get Mr Reed to represent the Pembroke Boroughs ?" was the question which was frequently asked. He said" Well. because at Pembroke we are a respectable sort of people." (Laughter.) The people from other towns often expressed a desire to have Mr Reed to represent them but he (the Chairman) always assured them that the Pembroke Boroughs, having got Mr Reed, they meant to keep him. After some other remarks, the Chairman called upon Mr REED, who was received with a storm of applause. He said,—Mr Chairman, Ladies, and Gentlemen,-I can t\8ture you that there is one thing which would have Caused me great pain this evening had it occurred-that ill the absence of my friend Mr. Trewent from the chair, because we had a considerable struggle over the election. *t was under his flag that I had the privilege of fighting 111 this town, and it was under that flag that I had the Rood fortune to win. I should have been very sorry to have gone into the battle and won the fight under a leader who afterwards abandoned me when I was sitting meber. (Cheers.) After explaining that it was his intention after the termination of the last session to have come down to the boroughs very early, and to have spent a considerable time there but that he was prevented trom doing so in consequence of orders to plan several »ew ships, and also by a journey into Russia and to •Berlin which his duties required, he continued I must .a.y for myself that I am one of those members ?fho are quite conscious that their strength ues in their constituents, and no Parliamentary objects which a member can have can possibly require him to Maintain himself in thought, or feeling, or presence, apart from his constituents. (Cheers.) The last session Was one of the most trying that I can possibly imagine. his often happened to me during the last session, and you can judge for yourselves what it is to a man of business—I sat upon a committee upon Dover Harbour, -that committee sometimes required my presence twice a ek, and generally once at twelve o'clock in the day. We went to the House of Commons at twelve o'clock in the day on Monday, and we remained till two o'clock on Tuesday morning. We then had a morning sitting at twelve o'clock on Tuesday, and we were there till two »'clock on Wednesday. On Wednesday there was a horning sitting at twelve o'clock, and we had to be there again till six o'clock on Thursday. Again at twelve o'clock we were at the committee meet- ing, and in the House till two o'clock on Friday morning. On Friday there was a morning sitting, and we were engaged until two o'clock on Saturday. That was the end of our week's Parliamentary work. (Cheers.) It Was not thrown away, because in the matter of the l)over Harbour Committee, owiug to the course taken, I raay say, chiefly to the action of my gallant friend Sir George Balfour and myself, we did prevent the construc- tion of a ridiculous harbour at Dover, which was to cost • million of money. (Cheers.) I think I shall have the appreciation of my friends here when I state my reason ■°r applying that epithet to the Dover Harbour. The Aarbour, although costing the large sum I have named, would have practically enclosed an enormous area of shallow matter, and a very limited area indeed of deep water. It would not have been amiss if we had hap- pened to have wanted a shallow water harbour, but the "Witnesses who came to give evidence told us that it was for the accommodation of Her Majesty's ironclad ships and Her Majesty's transports for the 'embarkation of troops; and the only preference for it at Ml was the accommodation of deep draught ships Yet tk this year of 1875 we had a proposal before us to build a Wbour which scarcely included any deep water at all, or *t any rate one which would not over on, quarter of its »rea, accommodate ships of aeep draught. I felt bound to a. Representative of these boroughs, Where the Government Ws Dot been too liberal in its expenditure, to oppose the outlay of a million of money on a harbour that could not answer the purpose for which it wa.E intended. I am glad to say that we stopped that harbour. this is significant, and should be • to a constituency of boroughs » man who is acquainted with matters in which they are interested. The Committee reported in favour of the Harbour; but the Government feared the Opposition of the House, for Sir George Balfour and myself weie determined to oppose it, and the very fact of there being two members of that Com- feittee who took pains with the subject, and understood the subject, and opposed that improper outlay, prevente the extravagant expenditure of a million sterling. As I am addressing many who are engaged in tier Majesty's Dockyard, you will naturally expect that 1 should speak in some detail of naval subjects. I am sorry to say that I am unable to do so with all the satisfaction that I could have desired, from a Parliamentary point of ,w, because of the extremely meagre debates, and of ihenditios under which those debates took place in the lsftt session of Parliament. One of the points which ( feel B^uEd to take most exception to, was the absence exolan«^n respecting the most important vessels that w« oil TMIIUMD?. I more than once complained in Parlia- ment and subsuently have done so publicly of the ^formation given to us respecting these vessels. I had a Particular cause for anxiety respecting those citadel ships m I may call them, of which the Inflexible was the first, and of which,I believe, the Ajax and the Agamemnon are &e next specimens. th? origin of this type of ship I been certain investigations and tentative KSSSBFCTI p«P».d «T *!>• Ad-mndty, with A view "0 the future development of thick amour. [Ann, 5 Tr, rr.v book upon ironclads, published some Admiralty, I said, "It may, per- haps benot amiL to mention that I have myself deviaed alill t not amiss TO iu heavy armour which it has tint 4°ucarrymg divulge, but which will come got yet been necessary to dl™^ined to the use of such toto active play when we ^I^wdeemed too great for thicknesses of armour as are now"^ n think Rnn«r- even a moment's consideration by Admiralty Acially upon this subject." After leavin„ y I was urged by Lord Dufferin to give evidenc e ore^ Admiralty Committee, of which he was chairman, a Jabsequently Mr Barnaby, who is now the Director of aval Construction at the Admiralty, gave further detailed evidence before that Committee upon the plan. Now the fundamental feature of this class of ship was that of a central citadel, very powerfully armed and armoured with the ship-shaped ends under running the ter, and covered by an armour-plated deck at a few Seet below the water over this deck the ship was to be knilt up of ordinary thin plating as usual. The idea was that the sea could be let into these ships; and though the armoured deck might be shot away, the central citadel Would have ample, stability to keep the ship upright. W[ow, there was great danger that in designing ships of thig type unless the constructor was as fully impressed I myself was with the importance of this feature of Buying stability to the whole by means of the central °itadel, I say there was danger of a class ships being designed and built, which, while safe enough under ordinary conditions would be Isubjectto capsizing during the action when the thin taarmoured ends began to get shot away. I will not now Explain the reason of this, but there are many who hear Ene who probably will understand it^wxthout explanation. That this was no imaginary danger in my mind you may Sufer from the fact that one of the Powers of Europe is At this moment building two large and costly sbips, which are to be armed with guns much heavier than have yet been sent to sea, cr even made previously, and I believe that both those ships are fcubiect to the danger which I have mentioned, and are liable to capsize in action. I cannot for my part believe, with mv knowledge of how these vessels are being made, tl: at they will be free from this danger and the defect which those ships possessed might have entered into our own ships if the construc- tors should have failed to see the precise source > of (laager which I have in view, And what I wish to point Wit is that in Parliament, where were we called upon to Vote money for several ships of this clas?, we never were furnished in any way, or at any time, with any assurance ttpon this most important point; nor was there any 10 intimation in the Parliamentary descriptions of this Bhip that this sonrce oi danger had been seen and guarded j gainst. (.Applause.) you will therefor« ao* th«.t I had 1 -:=- jnstgrounds for anxiety on the subject; not, indeed, oacanse I have the least doubt about the great and sur- passing ability of the construction staff of the Admiralty, but because this was a epecific feature in & c asts of most important vessels which might have escaped the notice of the ablest men, and which some construc- tors might possibly have differed in opinion upon from me. (Hear, hear.) During the past week I have been to the Admiralty, and have made special inquiries on this point, and I am glad to inform you that in the ships which the Admiralty aie building, this specific char&c- tetistic of the citadel ship has been thoroughly grasped (loud cheers)—and that the ships are of such proportions, and the citadel of such form and size, as to make the ships perfectly secure ^against the particular danger to which I have adverted. I make this statement with the greatest gratification, and I hops it will go forth to the country that, although as members of Parliament we have been kept in the dark upon a subject of this moment, the essential elements of safety have not been eouipio- mised in the new type of vessel. (Applause.) So far as these ships go—and unfortunately we are barred from making the progress in ships which we ought to do by tae multiplication of long and narrow granite docks, and of euch docks only-I say, so far as they go, tliete ships are square or rectangular citadels, with bows and sterns added to them. Now, I have, as some of you are aware, been recently inspecting another type of Citaiiei ship, viz,, the circular ironclads of Russia,which are,in point of fact, circular citadels, with thick armour and heavy guns, and propelled through the water by steam machinery, but are without the unarmoured ends with which our citadel ships are being built. What I have said upon t^iis sub- ject in the columns of the Times I have said with great care, and with con3iderable exactness, and you will observe it i3 a delusion to suppose that because I have appreciated the qualities of these circular ships, and have endeavoured to secure for them proper consideration, that therefore I condemn all other vessels, and urge the Government at once to the construction of circular ironclads aud nothiug else. Every one who knows anything of naval aifaiis, and brings common sense to bear upon the subjeot, is aware that war ships have for ages past been steadily increas- ing in size and power, and all great naval actions have been fought, and will be fought, with ships of varying sizes and qualities. I was looking only to-day into a work on the present state of England, published in the reign of King William and Quien Mary, in the year 1692, and from the chapter on the then maritime power belonging to the crown of England, I take the follow- ing extract:—"King Charles the Martyr, perceiving the great increase of shipping in our neighbouring nations, and the sovereignty of the seas was lute to b,, disputed, amongst other great ships of war, built one greater than any ship of war either in England or m any country of Europe, and named it the Royal Sove- reign, which, for a little diversion, shall be more particularly described. The Royal Sovereign I' being a ship of the arst rate or rank, oui-^ in the year 1637, is in length "J" t''LKvee, 127ft, in breadth by the beam 47ft, £ j~ » draught of water 21ft, of burden in all 2,t)72 ana 1,492 tuns, besides guns, tackle, &c..Jns ipsgh .y iuoviu, castle hath six anchors, whereof 6,0001bs, and the least 4,300ibs_. It whereof the greatest is 21_iuches in coi P^" 6,0001bs, her least cable being 8 inches m c- mpa s, wei0„- ing near l,3001bs." After giving f^iher p^tio- a^^ this ship, the author says:— 1 ne el;argts of ialdin ship of the first rate, together with the gm vt^Kle ,md rigging (besides victualling), doth ordinary amount to £ 62,432; those of lower rates proportionaWy. Here we Y W *«■& £ ? dered a mighty moving ca»uic, ti"-1 c„,t £ 02 000. li™ £ ?d Some of ;»=,««, and aie costing more than half a d' Kiu^r ri But has there ever been a period m tht n.i\y of England since that time when the navy was poweiless or worth- less, merely because it was steadny improving in size and power. (Cheers.) Or, is it to be admitted for a single moment th&t progress is to be (stayed for no better purpose ti);m securing unifor- mity m our vessels [louuuu™ imagine a more shallow or more foolish po.icy t.ian that which consists in condemning the vessels of tue past merely because vessels superior to them are now being produced. (Hear, hear.) I read only a day or two since in a metropolitan newspaper a letttr ot a correspondent, who called into question some of the statements which I wrote from Russia, and whose letter is worth mentioning, because of the strange conclusion that the writer arrived at. After making a number of statements about the Russian Navy, which may be perfectly true, but which have nothing whatever to do with my letters on the sub- ject, though he puts them in apparent con tradition thereof, he concludes by asking if it would not be well fer us, before spending money upon new ircn-ciads, to wait another five years until I make another trip to Russia, to see what vessels Russia bas by that time pro- duced. Now, I ask you if a similar suggestion could possibly emanate from the mind of an intelligent being. We have been building iron-clads now for 15 yt.i,rs-we began with 4-inch armour, we have now got to 24-inch. (Hear, hear.) We began at 24-ton guns; we have now got to 80-ton guns. (Cheers.) We have throughout that period been steadily increasing both armour and guns, and other Powers have been doing the same. There never has been a moment when we might not have been asked to suspend our ship-building operations for five years with just as much plausibility and just as much sense as we are asked now to suspend them for five years. And if we had obeyed such advice as this, the result would have been that we should have proved ourselves foois, and should have already met the fate which we should have deserved. At this moment, when a cloud much bigger than a msn's hand has arisen in the Eastern sky, and seems to be spreading there, are we worse or are we better off because year by year we have steadily increased the power of our ships and guns ? Should we have been in a better position to-day than we stand in if we bad been afraid to move beyond the four-inch armour and the four-ton guns with which we commenced ? ( Applause.) Has there ever been a moment during these fifteen years in which we have not been strong in a naval sense exactly in proportion to the progress that we have made in comparison Vith the progress that other Powers are making. (Loud cheer?.) I am ashamed to put such questions to you, and I am ashamed to answer them, for the common sense of every man in the realm ought to be sufficient to make them unnecessary. And yet we often see the delusive doctrine propounded that we must not build the ships of to-day because some others will be invented next year, or the ships which we have built last year or the_ ships which we are building this year are superior to them. Such vi^vvf are really too absurd for serious discussion. The answer to 'o"* all such remarks is, that the navy fifteen year- j^o or ten years ago, or five years ago, or to-day, if called uoon to defend the country or assist its power would encounter the ships of like periods m other navies; and odv one thing could have put us at a grave and alarming c^ispd- 7aEt8f«'nrosrSfwhfle otherPbeeQ f°r US to have fail^d to make progress wmie otner Powers were milrin.r- or.^ T don't hesitate to say that by the policy Xh ^eT^ pursued of steadily increasing the offensive and defensive powers of our ships, we have the strongest flppt in tVi<» world by far, and that only those Powerf who haVe tated and closely followed our po]icy have made a wise expenditure of their money. (Vociferous cheering- i\( course if all the Powers would together agree to make no increase in or m guns, and to make the on)v difference between the navies of Europe consist in the number of their sh-ps we might then with adrantSe give up the successive changes and improvements whifh we now mail6. 13ut nations do not inalra infomoi' i compacts on questions of thia sort, and JEnal n?«!h0Dn be the last nation to desire it. (Cheers > fc i always that superiority in a ship simrlv mo • mind expenditure of ranejr and?fP E^lL ^nnoT'T^ superior ships in these days, when ships are bHH and propelled by coal, what power can afford them ■> The fact is, the introduction of steam and the introduction of iron into ship construction, and more espedaMv tW introduction of armour, has put it absolutely uto the power of England for many years to come to command the high seas against the combined power of Kfne (Applause.) Only one condition is necessary in IL; as the ships are concerned, and that is that the coun'rv should feel the necessity for them, and should voZ the money to pay for them.. Of course, I am speakin- at a time when the navy is in a certain amount of dis- repute, aud must confess that the incidents which have occurred in alarming and almost continuous succession of late are enough to excite public anxiety; and that anxiety is, no doubt, further increased by the spirit in which the Admiralty has dealt with these incidents as they have arisen. The steaming of the Alberta at full «need into an innocent Bailing craft, in broad day, and x £ th the Crown of England on board, was an incident ™v,ir<h should have been met by the most determined rJ* m on the part of the Government, and should have been denied all excuse and all exculpation. (Loud and continued cheering.) Some accidents are excusable; that seems to me to have been totally inexcusable and for the Government to seek to soften ,t m any degree wasto alarm the country and shake their confidence m ^administration of the navy. (Continued cheers.) Again, in the case of the Vanguard, whoever may have been in fault in that affair, itis obvious tnat tne squadron was under no proper command, and was without proper orders, and Ifhe officer responsible for that Rquadron in the first degree was the last man who snould have been treated with lenience and exculpation. (Applause.) But, admitting all this,I still must say that we run some risk of falling into exaggeration, both in our reflections upon the navy and in our censures of the Government. We shall do no good by the slightest exaggeration in these matters; the only way to benefit the naval service and the country is to "look the exact facts in the face. You will be interested, as the Iron Duke was built in Pembroke, to hear what really happened in her case at Devonport. The story is, I believe, simply this. The lever5 which work certain valves have been lengthened, that they might be handled from an elevated platform, and the lengthened levers were marked in exactly the wrong way, 80 that when the lever was moved to open a valve, it closed it and vice verm. When the engines were started, instead of the sea injection being open to. it waa cut off from the coadeasera. and the result waa the con. densers began to heat. You can imagine how puzzling the results were but it took some time to find out what; 1really was happening, or had happened. It was thought desirable to stop the engines, and as the f,hip was thus without power to steam and near to the shore, a signal was hoisted for a tug. That, I believe, is the whole story, aad._ no doubt,"it discloses an unsatisfactory state of things in more respects than one, still it is an accident of a kiud that will sometimes happen, and that must be taken f«r what it is woith aud no more. But the point L wish to call your attention to is this, that wha t happened did not disclose any special weakness, or complication, or peculiarity, in the Iron Duke as an ironcbd ship. (Cheers.) That which occurred, occurred only to the engines, and the engine's are the same as those of many other ships which are not iron-clad. The accident, therefore, should not be used as an instance of any peculiar complication or danger in iron-clad ships, and having said that, I leave the question, because I think there is nothing more of importance to be said about It. (Applause.) I repeat to you, what I have always said, that is, that althoudl I hold myself free to criticise and complain oi the Government, when I think their action is wrong and injurious to the Naval Service, I shall not display any unfair hostility to the Government in a party spirit. I consider the position of the Government in naval questions a most difficult one, and one deserving much forbearance, and if they will only act with frank- ness and with reasonable publicity, aud with due regard to the responsibility of Parliament, I shall, to the best of my ability, give them my support. (Uheers.) I have done so before, and I am sure that I have done so to your satisfaction, and I am sure you will feel, with me, that whatever Government is in power, and who seek in any deuree to influence the naval policy cf the country, must do so without political party- feeling, and with a sole regard to the interests of the country. (Loud cheers.) Coming now for a few moments to the mercantile marine, lmust say that here, I think, we have to deal with a question in which the Government has not only acted unwisely, but has acted oppressively likewise. I need not enter at any lengtn into what passed in the House of Commons in connec- tion with the Merchant Shipping Bill, and with that tem- porary measure the Unseaworthy bbips Bill. The conduct of the "Government." and o. Mr Plimsoll likewise, will be remembered by you all, and I shall only offer a few observations upon it. And first, I have to make a most serious ^ompj-dnt against a member of 1 the Administra- tion, whom I certainly should have called to account in I the House of Commons if he bad remained at his post, and whom I may think it right to call to account if Jie should reappear there, although he has had his office changed. I am not going to speak to you of a very high, nor of a very influential person. On the contrary, I refer to a gentleman whose position in the Government was a humble one, and who, by a strange combination of inac- tivity and rashness, contrived to lower eve I the humble post which he held. i allude to Mr Cavendish Bentinck, the late Secretary of the Board of Trade, aud the present Judge-Advocate General, whatever that may bs> (Cheers.) I do not profess to know what it is, but I am quite sure it is not much, although it is a high-sounding name, for if it had been a post of serious importance^ would never have been held by Mr Bentinck. (Applause.) This gentleman saw fit, almost as soon as the session ended, to appear before his constituents, and there to loosen the tongue which had I been pretty tishtly bound in the House of Commons, and to loosen it for the purpose of speaking with contempt and derision of a man much more likely to benefit tiae country than himself. I was ashamed to see the manner in which this member of the Government discussed the Merchant Shipping question, as soon as he got outside t.ho walla,of Parliament, withia which he was appro- priately silent. (Cheers). I do not wish to over-rate the importance of what he has said, but so far as I have observed, he is the only member of the Government who has discussed this subject in the recess, and as his state- ments have not been disclaimed by the Government, we must hold them to a large extent responsible. (Hear, hear.) Now, one of this gentleman's statements is, to my mind, the most offensive that could possibly be made on behalf of the Government in the present state of public opinion. What Mr Plimsoll feels, and what I feel, and what I believe the majority of the House of Com- mons feel most strongly is. that this question has been too iong treated from the shipowners' point of view, and to the neglect of the interests of the seaman, and who naturally have no ready means of making their voices and wishes heard. And this being the state of feeling in the country, what does this member of the Govern- ment say ? Me says that the cause of the Government and the causs of the shipowners stand prettv nearly on the same basis. It has been the duty of the Government to resist—as he hoped the shipowners in the future would resist—the attacks which have been so plentifully showtred of late years." Hre we have a man who is a member of the Government, standing up before the country to speak upon this subject, who makes the most offen: ive declaiation that could possibly have been made, viz,, that it is tae duLy of the Government—and, as we may readily infer, will be the practice of the Govern- ment—to help the shipowners to resist what he is pleased to caH the attacks that are made upou them, but which' really means to resist those efforts which Mr Plimsoll and others are making to give to the seamen of this country that protection and that influence which they are thoroughly entitled to as members of the working- class. The Government have not disclaimed this lan- guage, and until they do it, and until they disclaim Mr Cavendish Bentinck too I for one, shall hold them responsible for placing themselves wantonly and publicly in antagonism to the just interests of the seamen of this country. (Loud cheering.) Ag:ain, this gentleman attacks the figures which Mr Pllmsoll gave concerning the number of men whose lives had been sacrificed and with a jaunty, and I may even say a vaunting air uses the following language The statistics in question showed," said be, that the loss of life was only about a thousand lives, which might have oeen saved by causes allowed to be preventible, out of a total of 350,000 seamen." Can anything more horrible be imagined than for a man standing up, and being a member of the Government, to speak in this manner of the loss of "only about a thousand lives" of British seamen ? And to so speak for the expressed and avowed purpose of resisting the efforts that a patriot and a philanthropist was making to put a stop to such losses 1 do not know whether the Government will meet Par- liament without disclaiming the language of their repre- sentative, but I do know this, that if Parliament 11 to be met in any such spirit by the Government, it will be found a great deal too strong for the Government, and they will have to do again what they have done before viz., assume a totally "different tone in the presence of Parliament. But the effrontery of Mr Bentiuck is equal to his heartlessness. Speaking of the amendments upon that first Government Bill which Mr Plimsoll, myself, and others had upon the notice paper of the House, he said:—"Both Mr Plimsoll and Mr Reed declined to discuss the particular amendments about compulsory survey, and the load- line, which were on the paper, and ran away without ever firing a shot, no one daring to introduce them to the House for discussion. That showed very clearly that the policy of the Government was not so far wrong after all." Now, you will be astonished, I think, when you hear what are the facts of this matter. They are these. Mr Plimsoll came to me and said, "Sir Charles Adder- ]ey, the President of the Board of Trade, has informed me that the Prime Minister considers it impossible to get the Government Bill passed unless a great number of the amendments that are down upon the notice paper are withdrawn." Sir Charles Adderley said the same th, ng I to me, and he requested Mr Plimsoll, myself, and others, to withdraw as many of our amendments as we possibly could withdraw conscientiously and prudently for the purpose of enabling the measure to pass, deeming the passing even of an imperfect measure better than the passing of no measure at all. We duly considered the matter, and looked over our amendments, and in order to meet the wishes of the Prime Minister and of the President of the Board of Trade, we consented to the withdrawal of certain amendments,and then having done this, no sooner has the House risen and are the membeisof it separated, than a member of the Government goes down to his constituents and accuses Mr Plimsoll and myself of cowardice, and of withdrawing in an improper manner the amendments of which we had given notice. Gentlemen, I maintain that this exceeds the bounds even of party politics, and challenges the character of our legislature and the honour of our legislation. It may be said that after all Mr Bentinckis but an insignificant member of the Government, and that these statements were not made by any very responsible Minister but my point is that they were made by a member of the Government, however humble his position; that that member of the Government has been transferred to another post within the Government, bearing a high-souuding title; and that his statements have been before the public since August last, with the full knowledge of the Government, who have left Mr Plimsoll and myself to lie under an imputa- tion of cowardice for no other reason than that we acceded to a wish of the Government itself, and sought to further their measure. I can only say that if tKia matter is left in this position until Parliament meets, I shall feel strongly disposed to invite the attention of the Houge to it and to call upon the hon. member for Whitehave to explain to the House whether, being secretary to the Board of Trade, he was 30 totally ignorant of the affairs of that Board as to be unaware of the President's request to Mr Plimsoll and myself; or whether, knowing the facts, he nevertheless took advantage of the rising of Parliament to accuse me and others of cowardice, knowipg well that the imputation is undeserved. (Loud applause.) And I think 1 must ask more-I think I must ask that member of the Government at whose request we withdrew our amendments, whether his attention was called, in August last, to the imputation that was made upon Mr Plimsoll myself, and several other members; and, if so, why he has allowed us to remain under that groundless imputa- tion for the last four mon £ h« ? (Continued oheering) Gentlemen, the manner in which Mr Plimsoll was treated last session was, to me, most unsatisfactory. It is quite true that he used language which I cannot jus- tify, and employed a violence of manner which seemed to me very uusuited to Parliament. But for these thinm he apologised, and, according to Mr D'sraeli, he apologised ) fully and handsomely and yet. Minister after Minister II rose and assailed him behind his back, declaring that that apology, which the Prime Minister had pronounced full and satisfactory, was no apology at all, and that hin;, less than a Select Committee of the House of I Commons, to inquire Into his statements, would satisfy the justice of the case. I was fortunate enough to be present on that occasion, and to resist that action of the Government; and, I am glad to say, thanks to the inde- pendence of the Conservatives who were present, to resist it effectively; but I must say, respecting it, that the 1 sudden and unpremeditated violence ot Mr I'limaoU was, to my mind, much more tolerablethan the premeditated and deliberate violence which certain members of the present Government exhibited when thev endeavoured to bring Mr Plimsoll under the censures of a Select Committee in the manner I have suggested. (Cheers.) I am afraid, gentlemen, that this Merchant Shipping question is very far yet from its solution, and, if I may infer the future from tne past, I think it will prove a source of great weakness to the Government, because of the spirit in which they persist in discussing it. I do not believe they discuss it, or even consider it, with anything like fair- ness, or in anything like the spirit which the country desires them to display. (Hear, hear.) No doubt it is an irritating question, and no doubt the shipowners are powerful in the House of Commons. No doubt, also, there is much that is irritat,ing- in the agitation of which ^fr Plimsoll is theleader. Still, surely the protection of tne lives of our seamen is a subject worthy of the greatest care and consideration on the part of the British Government; aud surely, also, the state of the mercan- tile marine at the present time is so thoroughly unsatis- factory as to present a worthy occasion for legislation of the most serious and thoughtful nature. I deplore the fact that we are again to discuss this subject in Parlia- ment, in the presence of the declaration which I have already quoted to you from a member of the Board of Trade, viz.. that the Government and the shipowners have the same cause to maintain, whicn means-if it means anything—that the Government^ have to withhold and to resist the pro- tection wuicu the country desires to see extended to a much-neglected and powerless class. I can only say for myself that I shall watch this question in Parliament with the greatest interest, and, also, I shall not presume to take a leading part in this diseussion. I shall endeavour, to the best of my ability, to urge wise and generous legislation upon this subject. One'thin^ I ask you not to believe for a single moment, and that is, that le, legislation in the interests of the seamen will destroy British trade, and drive our mercantile marine under foreign flags. This is what the shipowners are always telling us, but there is very little truth or force in it. The way to keep ships under the British flag, is to extend to the British seaman that care and those legis- lative protections which are on shore extended to the commonest people, and which are much more necessary on the sea than elsewhere. And however sincere those owners may be who speak in a contrary sense, they labour under a delusion, and speak from apprehension rather than from a deliberative study of the fact?. (Loud and prolonged cheering.) After some further rt- marks, Mr Reed concluded au ab!e speech, which had been listened to with the closest attention. A vote of confidence was passed in the hon. gentleman, and the meeting separated.