The Thunderer Thunders

The reports of the condemnation of preserved meats at Portsmouth concluded with the slightly melancholy implication that the Times' mole had been neutralised.

 

PORTSMOUTH, JAN. 9.
    The examination into the preserved meats at the Royal
Clarence Yard was resumed this morning, we believe with
the same revolting results as already published by us, but
we can furnish no definite report upon the subject, the
Admiralty, ashamed of their responsibility in the matter,
having deprived us and the press generally of obtaining
authentic information. But the horse being now stolen,
their Lordships lock their Augean stable door too late.

Yes, the cat was well and truly out of the bag and the Times was already living up to its nickname the Thunderer having already begun the series of fulminating editorials reproduced below.

The reply printed in the Observer (and reproduced in the Times the next day) clearly derives from an establishment source with privileged access to authoritative information so it may well be an official, although unattributable, statement.

It is worth noting that the Times directs most of its scalding attack towards the Admiralty, not on the contractor, Stephan Goldner.

The Times does make one tiny concession, noting the information that improper contents were found only in a very small proportion of cans may allow the possibility of a slightly reduced level of criminality than originally suggested.

Nothing is made of Goldners background at this stage, although that would change during the parliamentary debate on February 12th 1852.

The newspapers of the day didn't go in for shouty headlines like they do now so, in the interest of my own, and hopefully the readers, amusement, they are my own composition. 

    It is the pleasure of the department of our Go-
vernment which presides over our navy to do all
things for itself. While the less maritime Powers of
Europe are well content to receive vessels of all
descriptions from the yards of our private ship-
builders, the Admiralty has so much confidence in
its skill, economy, and vigilance that it takes upon
itself the duty of building and rigging our fleets.
Undeterred by the uniform experience which has
proved, over and over again, how badly this duty
is discharged, unwarned by the fact that while
one-third of our naval estimates defrays the ex-
penses of the effective service two-thirds are swal-
lowed up in the bottomless sink of dockyard pro-
fusion and corruption, we stick to this losing
trade, and lavish our millions in the con-
tinuance of an experiment which practice and
theory alike condemn. So far do we carry our
desire to do everything for ourselves that we have
turned biscuit manufacturers as well as ship-
builders, not being able to trust the composition
of that most simple edible to any bakers but our
own. With a singular inconsistency, however, we
have not taken upon ourselves the manufacture of
preserved meats for the use of the navy. "One
"must draw a line somewhere," and the line in this
instance has been drawn between the baking of bis-
cuits and the preparation of meat. It possibly
might have been thought that if Government is to
embark in any trade at all, the preparation of meat
would have been the most suitable to which its
energies could have been directed. Hermetical
sealing is required in order to effect the preservation,
and the only test which can be applied is the open-
ing of several cases taken at random. The pur-
chaser of such an article is always liable to be
more or less imposed on - a strong reason for be-
coming the manufacturer oneself. As, however, the
Admiralty has thought fit to trust this de-
partment to contractors, we had a right to ex-
pect that the proceedings of such persons would
be watched with infinite jealousy by a Government
department so little disposed to let anything out of
its own hands. How far this reasonable anticipa-
tion is well-founded what has recently been passing
at Portsmouth will best prove. For several days a
Board of Examination delegated by the authorities
have been engaged in the disgusting task of exa-
mining "preserved" meats intended for the use of
HER MAJESTY'S ships of war. These preserved
meats are contained in canisters holding about ten
pounds each. Out of upwards of three thousand
of these which have been examined up to the pre-
sent time, scarcely one-fifteenth has been found fit
for human use, and even that, we apprehend, cannot
be considered as very excellent, since it has been
distributed among the poor of the town. "If any-
"thing," says JOHN GIRDER, "is totally uneatable,
"let it be given to the poor." The remaining four-
teen parts were not merely uneatable, as consisting
of the refuse parts of animals, intestines, ligaments,
and coagulated blood, but emitted a stench so in-
tolerable that the Board, after availing themselves
copiously of Sir WILLIAM BURNETT'S disinfecting
fluid, were constantly obliged to desist from their
labour, from the well-grounded fear of pestilence,
and did not deem themselves safe from infection
till the noisome cargo was fairly thrown overboard
at Spithead.
    This is an extremely serious business, and must

be fully cleared up and explained. We do not
quarrel with the purchasing of meat for the navy
from Galatz, in Moldavia, or anywhere else where
it can be had cheap and good, though this mis-
carriage will doubtless be a source of immense
triumph to some of our Protectionist contempo-
raries. But we want to know whose duty it was
to examine this meat, and what amount of ex-
amination it actually underwent. This is not
the case of a few defective canisters here and there;
the staple of the purchase was altogether bad. We
bargained for wholesome meat, and we bought
putrid garbage. The slightest examination, the
most superficial scrutiny, would have detected this
at once. It is fifteen to one that any case which
had been opened would have been found not merely
uneatable but absolutely pestilential. The meat has
been supplied for fourteen months, and it is therefore
quite evident that it has been received without any
examination at all. The contractors said it was
good, and the naval authorities who purchase it
took their word for the fact. Does this proceed
from gross negligence or corruption ?
    Possibly the amount of culpability is not much
varied either way. Whether an officer intrusted
with a duty so important to the comfort or even
the existence of so many hundreds of helpless persons
has suffered his vigilance to be put to sleep by a
bribe, or has neglected his duty through callous
and self-indulgent inertness, is but of little moment,
compared with the effects which may arise from
such a breach of duty. Upon these supplies
may depend hundreds of valuable lives, and
the success of the most important operations.
It would be gratifying at any rate, to be in-
formed - and we trust the public will be informed
without loss of time - whether the six thousand
canisters now under examination are the whole
of our unfortunate Moldavian purchase, and if
not, what has become of the remainder. What
guarantee have we that the same infamous negli-
gence may not have loaded the ships of our Arctic
voyagers with tons of hermetically sealed corrup-
tion ? What security is there that these brave
men may not have found from the negligence of
our Government that destruction which they
dreaded only from the adverse powers of terrible
and secluded nature ? It is not probable that
this is the only instance of such neglect, nor the
only case in which officials thus accustomed to
rely on the good faith of contractors have been
deceived. We shudder to think of the shipwrecked
crews who may have perished by a slow and
lingering death, of the wind-bound which may
be enduring all the agonies of famine, simply
because some official is too indolent or too corrupt
to investigate the state of the provisions on the
soundness of which sailors unhesitatingly risked
their lives. Our humane legislation forces
every merchant ship to carry with her the re-
medies against scurvy, and subjects the con-
veyance of the poorest outcast of society to sani-
tary regulation, while nobody can be found to take
the trouble of securing the crews of our ships-of-
war against provisions which carry with them the
double evil of famine and pestilence.
    We have had occasion to remark lately on the
absurdities of our military system, and to point
out how sedulously our soldiers are unfitted for the
discharge of the duties required from them. As
far as we can provide by aimless muskets and scar-
let coats, "they always miss and they are never
"missed." But what an insight does such
an occurrence as this of the provisions afford
into the management of the sister service of
the navy ! Can any one the least acquainted
with human nature believe that this scandalous
neglect is confined to the single case of pre-
served meats? Is it not perfectly clear that the
same carelessness of inspection, the same laxity and
listlesshess which have rendered such a thing possible,
must be daily and hourly rendering possible other
omissions and commissions equally ruinous, if not
equally revolting? Can a department convicted of
the enormous default of providing provisions for
the navy the very sight of which is infection be
reasonably supposed to be administering with the
most common care and diligence the millions
which pass through its hands for the purposes of
building and equipping our navy? What better
proof do we ask of the ruinous extravagance which
we are so constantly told prevails in our dock-
yards than such a case as this? Such a thing
could never have happened in a well-managed
department, and we have a perfect right to
reason from the abuses which we know to those
we cannot trace. The height of negligence,
like the height of vice, is not reached at once.
Such an occurrence is but the natural climax of a
long series of neglect permitted and encouraged.
A sound system of management does not bring
forth such rotten results as those which have
been poisoning the air of Portsmouth. The
case of the soldier is hard enough; he is ex-
pected to fight and conquer with tools unfitted
for the purpose, and of which he is never
thoroughly taught the use. But the case of the
sailor is still harder. He is expected to contend
with the rage of the elements as well as the broad-
sides of the enemy; but in order to conquer he
must live, and those to whom a grateful country
delegates the care of his subsistence are content to
leave that subsistence to blind chance or interested
cupidity.

     If disasters are destined for this country in its
military and naval operations, they will, at least,
not arrive without warning. The visitations of
the last year have been absolutely ominous. As if
to show us the futility of the resources on which
we are relying, our ships have broken down, our
stores have been condemned, our firearms have
proved useless, and our soldiers are found incapaci-
tated by their equipments from encountering half
their number of naked savages. It would be hard
to overlook such tokens of evil, if, with all our
vaunted wealth and skill, we cannot send reinforce-
ments to the Cape without miscarriages, or victual
our vessels without peril of pestilence, what is to
become of us in the face of such hostilities as men
now living can well remember, and may see again?
    The war at the Cape is, or at least was, reputed
to be almost beneath the dignity of so powerful a
State as Great Britain. It was a mere colonial em-
broilment manufactured between Lord GREY, the
settlers, and the Caffres. Even as things are now
going, we have but 10,000 men there, and, though
this is a prodigious force for its presumptive
duties, yet it is not a large army to feed with men and
munitions. The detachments sent to Sir
HARRY SMITH are not above 600 or 700 strong,
and these are only forwarded at intervals of some
months. Certainly such duties ought not to
weigh oppressively on "establishments" like ours.
We have been at a monstrous expense to create
a "steam navy" of the highest character and
power. Year after year, when the estimates pro-
voked the expostulations of even reasonable re-
formers, we were met by the assertion, that the
element of steam was altogether new, and that the
whole work had to be done from the beginning.
We built new steam docks, new steam factories,
and new steam yards. We built steamers of wood
and steamers of iron, and lavished enormous sums
on experimentalising with engines, funnels, swivel
guns, and fuel. At last we were told that the
outlay was approaching its close, and that we had
fairly established a splendid steam marine. We have
now put this marine to a trial, and under circumstances
of the easiest kind. As we are at peace with all
the world except native Africans, our transport
ships are not incumbered with any means of de-
fence or compelled to assemble in convoys. We
want only a single steamer at a time, to carry about
two-thirds of the living load for which she is nomi-
nally constructed, and for this purpose she might
disembark those heavy guns which were invariably
made the scapegoats of Admiralty mishaps. These
are no very arduous duties, but, such as they are,
they cannot be properly performed. It will be
said, perhaps, that we are making rather too much
of an accident. If the Megaera did break
down on Saturday, she was fit for sea
again by Wednesday; and what is there
outrageous in a casualty like this? The remark
might have some force if the failure of the Megaera
was the only failure, or if it had manifestly pro-
ceeded from nothing but the violence of the
weather. But the Vulcan fared no better, and
with such difficulty, after all, did she make her
voyage that, as the reader will remember, rumours
were actually current of her total loss. Moreover
the condition of the Megaera at starting has been
described by eye witnesses as such that what oc-
curred might almost have been matter of predic-
tion. As if, even in this time of peace
our navy were too small for the exigencies of
the service, the steamer in question was made
a store ship as well as a troop ship; and
all the space which should have been devoted
to the accommodation and security of the soldiers
was bespoken for heavy stores despatched by the
Ordnance. The vessel, in consequence, was so
overladen and incumbered as to exhibit a scene of
the most perfect confusion, notwithstanding the
excellent discipline of the corps, and if she en-
counter such weather as seems most probable, it
may be necessary to throw the cargo overboard for
the sake of the crew. Such is our "steam navy."
One steamer is charged with the work of two, and
breaks down under the trial.
    Our "establishments" are even worse - worse
in cost and worse in returns. Some person or persons,
not having the fear of the "First Lord" before
their eyes, have been "indiscreet" enough to cer-
tify that a very large consignment of provisions,
stowed away in our victualling stores, was abso-
lutely unfit for human consumption. Matters
have even proceeded so far that the fact is proved
beyond denial, and 6,000 canisters of "preserved"
meats, Laid up for the sustenance of our sailors in
time of need, are found to be nothing but so
many cases of the most horrible garbage. No
doubt the unlucky officer who made this discovery
will forfeit all "claim to confidence" and be held
incapable of future employment. But after
the Admiralty has pronounced its own sentence
the public at Large will pronounce theirs, and
they will demand an inquiry upon those officials
through whose neglect, incapacity, or corruption
such an abominable fraud was successfully per-
petrated. Who advised or sanctioned the pur-
chase of this "meat ?" Who received it, ex-
amined it, and sent it into the stores ? Is there
any officer whose duty it is to see that biscuit is
biscuit and beef is beef?  Who compared the
consignment with the samples ? and on whose
report did the "contractor" receive good money
for his garbage ? The answer to these questions
must be given without evasion or delay.
    And now that the "indiscretion" of this ex-
posure has been actually committed, we must take
the liberty of suggesting that the warning is too
signal to be lost. Who is to certify that in our
enormous accumulation of stores there are no other
provisions or materials in the same state of "pre-
"servation" as these delectable "meats?"  Who
will stand surety for our flour, our tea, our coffee,
our sugar, our rice, our cocoa, our beef, our pork,
or any of those goods which the "Commissioners
"for executing the office of Lord High Admiral"
periodically lay in by contract? For the value of
these stores we do not see that we have any other
security than that which has just been tested
in the case of "GOLDNER'S preserves," and
we insist, therefore, that an examination of
the most rigorous kind shall be instituted in
the track of that which has now produced such
startling results. This is not a subject on which
we can afford to be tender with official dignitaries.
It may involve the very salvation of the country,
for when the time of need arrives - a time which
by making these very provisions we profess to an-
ticipate - there may be little opportunity of
amending an error or replacing a loss. At the
present moment a stock of 100,000lb. of meat is
not absolutely indispensable to the efficiency of our
fleet, but it might possibly have supplied the only
stores of this kind at hand for a squadron proceeding
to sea. Let us make the best of our warning, and
ascertain forthwith, by unsparing scrutiny, the
actual state of our "establishments" in all par-
ticulars. Nobody can doubt, it will be said, the
merits of our superintendents. Very likely not;
but nobody doubted, till the other day, that Mr.
GOLNER'S canisters contained sweet and wholesome
meats.
    Now that the suspicions of the country have
been fairly aroused, they must be met by a prompt
and rigorous investigation. Perhaps it will be no
easy matter to discover why our Government
steamers are often unseaworthy and always
slow; why they always break down, and
invariably are twice as long as they should
be on their voyages; but we may at any rate
assure ourselves that all the articles we have
bought and paid for are what they pretend to be.
Not a day must be lost in extending to every
department of Admiralty and Ordnance stores the
inquiry which has proved so fruitful at the Ports-
mouth Victualling-office during the past week.
Let us know our position without further uncer-
tainty or disguise. If all is as it ought to be, well
and good; if not, let us right ourselves while
there is yet time, let us punish the guilty, and
exercise a greater vigilance for the future.

 THE CONDEMNED PRESERVED MEATS AT PORTSMOUTH.

  The following explanation of the circumstances under which pre-
served meats were issued to sea-going ships, and likewise of the
causes which led to the recent condemnation of those meats, which
had been contracted for by the Admiralty at Portsmouth, demands
attention, as much for the temperate and judicious manner in which
the subject is treated, and for the great information displayed, as
for the authoritative quarter from which it emanates. It will be per-
ceived that in no case are ships at sea or on foreign stations confined to
those preserved meats for more than one day per week; and it does not
appear, since 1850, when they came into extended use, that there have
been any serious complaints made of them. At all events, the wrong
that has been done is the work of the contractor, upon whom, doubtless,
the full penalty of breach of contract will be levied; and it does not seem
that the Admiralty are in the slightest degree to blame in the matter.
  It is well known to every one conversant with the practice of yacht
owners, that noblemen and gentlemen, who have all the means of
luxury at their command, and who are their own masters, never go to
sea without a supply of those provisions.
  The subjoined statement will go far to place the question in a just and
proper light before the public, and to simplify and facilitate those fur-
ther proceedings, which the Government is fully prepared to take.

  Much misunderstanding appears to have arisen respecting the con-
demnation of preserved meat at the Clarence Yard.
  The preserved meat is supplied in tin canisters of a certain dimension
and strength, hermetically sealed. The supply is obtained by contract,
and subject to examination - any canister once opened, becomes unser-
viceable within twenty-four hours - it is, therefore, impossible to examine
every canister, but a certain proportion, about five per cent, is usually
opened. In this examination it can be ascertained, in the canisters
actually opened, whether improper parts of the animal have been
used; but where the proportion of improper meat in the whole supply
is very small, it must happen that on some occasions breaches of the
contract in this respect will escape notice, from the impossibility of
examining every canister; but this is not the usual cause of the meat
becoming unserviceable.
  If the air has penetrated into the canister, or was not originally
entirely exhausted, or if there was a defect in the original curing, meat
which on examination appears perfectly good and is properly passed,
would corrupt and become unserviceable.
  Preserved meat was first issued to the navy as an article of comfort
for the sick in the year 1815.
  It was also supplied in a limited quantity to Captain Parry on his
Arctic voyage in 1819, and again to Captain Trotter's ships in the Niger
expedition in 1840.
  The reports in these instances were favourable; still as the article,
from its comparative scarcity and cost, could only be considered as one
of luxury, its general use in the, navy was not then contemplated.
  In 1840 a patent for preserved meat was taken out by Mr. Goldner,
and from this time considerable improvement was made in the art of
manufacture, and in the cost at, which it could be supplied, and in con-
sequence of this the Board of Admiralty were induced in 1846 to
authorize the issue of preserved meat experimentally on a more ex-
tensive. scale.
  The trial thus made appearing to be successful, the Board of Admiralty,
by a circular of the 29th of April, 1847, directed that preserved meat
should be introduced as an article of victualling into the navy, and issued
to ships on, foreign stations one day in each week, with preserved
potatoes, in lieu of a salt beef ration.
About the end of 1848, or in the beginning of 1849, it was reported
to the Admiralty that, in addition to such occasional condemnations of
preserved meat as are common to salted provisions, parts of the
animal not fit for use had, in a few instances, been found mixed with
the meat, and immediate steps were ait once taken to remedy the evil.
  In the following year (1850) a new contract was entered into with Mr.
Goldner, and in 1851, increased quantities of preserved meat being
required for the navy, a further contract was made with that gentleman
for a large additional supply. It was in the course of examining the
first deliveries under this contract that an improper substance was dis-
covered in one of the canisters, and upon this the whole quantity under
delivery, amounting to 22,325lb., was at once rejected; and complaints
at the same time reached the Admiralty of the nature and quality of the
preserved meat then being served out in ships abroad, orders were
immediately sent to the commanders-in-chief on foreign stations to
stop the issue of such provisions, and to return the supply into store.
  The contract with Mr. Goldner was then immediately cancelled; and,
in order that the exact amount of penalty to which he as contractor is
liable may be ascertained, every canister in store, as well as those
returned from ships abroad, is now being subjected to examination.
  In justice to the contractor, however blameable his conduct, we are
bound to state that a very small proportion of the canisters examined is
objectionable on the ground that improper parts of the animal have
been employed. The principal proportion of those condemned may
have become unserviceable from the other causes before stated.
  It appears, therefore, that the use of preserved meat generally was
adopted after much experience - that on the first complaints immediate
measures were taken to supply a remedy; and that this last extensive
examination and condemnation has been occasioned by the determina-
tion of the Admiralty not to permit improper meat to be supplied for
the use of the navy.
  It is much to be regretted that this failure of the proper supply should
have taken place; and in issuing the preserved meat the Admiralty
were not swayed by any motive of economy, but were desirous of
substituting a change for the salt meat ration - a change which those
only who have served long at sea can sufficiently value.
  The supply was obtained by contract - a mode which is generally pre-
ferred - but such instances as the one now under consideration show
some of the inconveniences to which the system of contract is liable.

    We published yesterday from a weekly contem-
porary a statement, purporting to "emanate
"from an authoritative quarter," respecting the
edifying disclosures at the Gosport Victualling-
yard. This official apology we have perused
with great attention, and we have now to state
our opinion that in the parts where it is not
superfluous it is wholly insufficient. No excuse
was needed for the introduction, under pro-
per circumstances, of "preserved" meat into
the provision-list of the navy. As sailors require
animal food, and cattle cannot be pastured at sea,
it becomes necessary to preserve dead meats by
artificial methods. Salting is only one of those
methods, and has been hitherto adopted exclu-
sively for no other reason than that it seemed
the most reliable. But salt provisions, even
with the corrective of lime-juice, are, as is
well known, unwholesome for a long con-
tinuance, and if therefore any means were dis-
covered of keeping provisions without salt it was
not only optional with the Admiralty, but became
their bounden duty, to give the navy the benefit of
the invention. The simple question is whe-
ther the invention itself was generally practicable, and whe-
ther, in such case, due precautions were used in
laying in supplies.
    In the explanation now, as our neighbours would
term it, "communicated," we are informed that
"preserved meat was introduced as an article of
"naval victualling" in the month of April, 1847,
it being directed that vessels on foreign stations
should be served with a weekly ration of such food
in lieu of salt beef. We are next told that towards
the beginning of 1849 reports were made, not
only of the occasional condemnation of these
meats, but of the discovery of improper substances
in the tins. Immediate steps, it is said, "were
"taken to remedy this evil," but the nature of
the measures remains to be learnt. It is not
stated, otherwise than by implication, of whom
these meats were purchased, but, as we learn that
in 1850 a "new," and in 1851 a " further"
contract, was entered into with Mr. GOLDNER, we
presume "this gentleman" was also the contractor
for the original supplies. "It was in the course,"
proceeds the apology, "of examining the first
"deliveries under this contract (of 1851) that
"an improper substance was first discovered
"in one of the canisters," on which the
whole quantity then under delivery was at
once rejected, and, "complaints at the same time
"reaching home from ships abroad," orders were
given to stop the issue of these provisions, to can-
cel the contract with Mr.GOLDNER, and to examine
every canister in store, that the amount of his
liabilities in the way of penalty might be ascer-
tained. Such is the Admiralty defence.
    Now, we must first remark, that as far as can
be inferred from this not very perspicuous state-
ment, every supply obtained from Mr. GOLDNER,
without exception, appears to have been suspi-
ciously constituted. The "reports" which reached
"the Admiralty" about the end of 1848, or begin-
ning of 1849, must necessarily have referred to
the meats which were issued under the circular of
1847, and these reports distinctly specified the ad-
mixture of "improper substances" - a fact pointing
not to accident or oversight, but to direct and unmis-
takeable fraud. Nevertheless, a "new contract" was
made in 1850, and a "further contract" in 1851;
and while the meats furnished under the latter were
being condemned by the authorities themselves,
complaints arrived at the same moment from abroad
which could only have reference to earlier supplies,
and, as we imagine, those of 1850. Thus all the
dealings on the part of the contractor appear to
have furnished matter for complaint.
    But we have now to ascertain some points which
are not elucidated in the statement before us. Pray,
under what contract or contracts were those
6,000 particular canisters supplied which have
been found so atrociously bad ? The first delivery
of 1851, we learn, was wholly rejected, and the
"contract," meaning, we suppose, that of 1851,
immediately cancelled. None of these meats, there-
fore, found their way into the warehouses. What,
then, were those meats now discovered? They
must have passed the ordeal of Government in-
spection, for they were actually in store - that
is to say, they had been approved and laid
up for use. Now, we desire to know
under what contract these were taken,
when and by whom they were tested,
and what report was made upon the sub-
ject ? Further, the defence of the Admiralty seems
to insinuate that the examination at last instituted
into the quality of the "stores" was the result of
suspicions conceived from the character of the first
delivery of 1851. Was this the case? or were
the authorities roused to action by a somewhat
more forcible appeal ? We seem to recollect a re-
port that the stench issuing from the place in
which these meats were stored became so frightful
as to alarm the whole neighbourhood, and that it
was upon this summons, and not on any prede-
termined resolution, that the investigation took
place.
    The apologist of the Admiralty sums up his case
with remarkable complacency. "It appears,"
says he, "that the use of preserved meats gene-
"rally was adopted after much experience; that on
"the first complaints immediate measures were
"taken to supply a remedy; and that this last
"extensive examination and condemnation has
"been occasioned by the determination of the
"Admiralty not to permit improper meat to be
"supplied for the use of the navy." We humbly
submit to the opinion of the public that no such
conclusions are warranted by the explanation sup-
plied. To us, on the contrary, "it appears"
that the contracts from first to last gave evidence
of improper dealing. By the showing of the Ad-
miralty itself complaints occurred on the very first
issue of these provisions, and continued without
intermission to the present moment. The "mea-
"sures taken to supply a remedy" are left to be
conjectured; but, whatever they were, they were
manifestly of not the slightest effect, for the com-
plaints got worse and worse, and when a thorough
inquiry was at length set on foot the state of
things proved more horrible than it was possible to
conceive. With what face can the Admiralty offi-
cials affirm that they "took immediate measures to
"remedy the evil" in 1849, when the evil is
proved to be more inveterate than ever in
1851 ?  Before 1849 the supplies were "oc-
"casionally" bad; in that year the authorities
"remedied the evil," and since that time they
have been so abominably foul that not 60 cases
out of 6,000 are fit for human consumption. Is
not this a strange sort of defence ?
    All this disclosure, however, it seems, "has
"been occasioned by the determination of the Ad-
"miralty not to permit improper meat to be sup-
"plied for the use of the navy." The navy is infi-
nitely obliged to them for their consideration, but
who permitted improper meat to be put into the
stores, there to be discovered or not, as ac-
cident might determine ? Who lodged in
the victualling-houses 6,000 canisters of meat
supplied by a contractor whose goods had
been previously so complained of ? Was this
stock, in the main, that furnished under the
"new contract" of 1850 ? and if, as we suspect, it
was so, how came such stuff to be passed after the
acknowledged warnings of 1849, and how came a
"further contract" to be made in 1851? No
wonder the "first deliveries" of this contract were
bad, considering what had previously passed
muster. The contractor introduces "improper
"substances" in 1847, in 1850 he supplies the
garbage which is now polluting the sea at
Spithead; and what wonder, then, when such
wares had found a good market, if he furnished a
still cheaper article in 1851 ? There never seems
to have been a period at which "complaints"
were not made of these preserved meats, and yet
the Admiralty continue their dealings with the
same contractor, and enlarge their orders every
successive year.
    The authorities, however, put in a word or two
for their old caterer, and "feel bound to state
"that a very small proportion of the canisters ex-
"amined" (we should like to hear what proportion)
"is objectionable on the ground that improper
"parts of the animal have been employed.
"The principal portion of those condemned may
"have become unserviceable from other causes."
These causes are premised to be defects in the
curing or the canister, by which meat, originally
good, might become corrupt. But these defects
though evincing, perhaps, less positive criminality
than the introduction of the filthy offal described
in our reports, are nevertheless iniquitous viola-
tions of a contract under which meats were to be
furnished consumable for a given number of years.
We do not choose, however, to enter upon the
discrimination suggested. Every person who pe-
ruses the accounts of the investigation now pending
must feel perfectly convinced that the contract was
so executed as to leave not the slightest room for
exculpation on the ground of accident. No casualty
or oversight could have brought about such results
as are now disclosed, and we again demand that a
scrutiny which has proved so unexpectedly fruitful
shall not stop at this point, but be extended,
while there is yet time for amendment, to every
branch of our "establishments."

J'Accuse! - The case of Stephan Goldner - Britain's Dreyfus

 Images from the wonderful AMC's The Terror

I shamelessly appropriate the language of Émile Zola's celebrated exposé of the notorious Dreyfus Affair to emphasize the injustice meted out by history to Stephan Goldner.

Alfred Dreyfus was a French army captain of Jewish descent who was wrongfully accused and convicted of treason in late 1894. He suffered five years harsh imprisonment but was eventually exonerated and promoted in July 1906.

Stephan Goldner was an Hungarian born industrialist of Jewish descent who was accused of fraud, almost immediately exonerated, yet strangely he was still condemned and demonised by the court of public opinion for 150 years.

Goldner built a successful business supplying canned food for the Royal Navy and the civilian market but when defective products caused the collapse of the venture and a public scandal in January 1852, the question was raised as to whether a similar failure may have caused the disappearance of Sir John Franklin's expedition which had departed for the Arctic seven years earlier.

The Times article had phrased the question quite neutrally, "Suppose, for instance, Franklin and his party to have been supplied with such food as that condemned...", it did not pretend to have the answer. Nonetheless, within a few years, the supposed poisoning of the Franklin expedition was being treated as established fact, and it grew from there.

    ... but worst of all they were supplied with Goldner's canisters of meat, which were (as subsequently proved to be) putrid and unfit for human food

                John Ross, 1856, Rear Admiral Sir John Franklin: a narrative of the circumstances &c.

    ... it was now proved beyond doubt that their lives were sacrificed by the accursed cupidity of the contractors who supplied them with putrid provisions.

                Alexander Bryson, 1859, Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society of Edinburgh

    It seems probable that the men of the expedition might have survived for a longer period but for the fact that the animal food which they were supposed to carry with them in the shape of preserved meats had actually rotted in its cases. ... To supply putrid poison for naval men engaged upon a public duty is to play the part of the enemy and the traitor.

                The Spectator, November 19, 1859

    To me one of the most awful things in connection with the Franklin catastrophe was the discovery afterwards of tins professing to be filled with preserved meat, but which were only packed with stones. These had been supplied by a contractor Named Goldner in England. When the poor unfortunate explorers came to open them, what must have been their horror on discovering the fiendish act - I call it nothing else - that had been perpetrated? These tins were eventually found by one of the searching parties; but of course on their return to England the man - who deserved hanging several times over - had disappeared.

                Albert Hastings Markham, 1895, The Windsor Magazine

    Like most evil men, Stephen Goldner would have passed unnoticed in a crowd.

        Cookman, 2000, Ice Blink

John Barrow, The Admiralty's archivist and son of  the long serving Admiralty Second Secretary who had set the expedition in motion, was the first to try to set the record straight, his letter appearing in the Times just two days after the scandal broke.

        THE PRESERVED MEAT OF THE NAVY

            TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES

    Sir,— Having read in The Times of to-day the account of
    the examination of the preserved meats at the Royal
    Clarence-yard, supplied under Goldner’s contract, and of
    the contents of the tin canisters, you will oblige me by in-
    serting these few lines, which I trust may in some measure
    counteract the alarm which the concluding paragraph from
    your Portsmouth correspondent cannot fail to have created
    in the minds of the family and friends of the officers and
    seamen of Sir John Franklin’s expedition. Your corre-
    spondent very reasonably supposes, and very naturally too,
    "that if Franklin and his party have been supplied with
    such food as that condemned, and relied upon it as their
    mainstay in time of need, the very means of saving their
    lives may have bred a pestilence or famine among them,
    and have been their destruction."
        No one can dispute this. If it be so, it is a fearful thing
    to contemplate; but I do not myself feel much misgiving
    on the subject. I think I am right in asserting that the
    first supply of preserved meats under Goldner’s contract
    was to Sir John Franklin’s ships. This, of course, can
    easily be ascertained. It is not probable that in his first
    supply anything but the very best provisions would have
    been issued. From that period (1845) Goldner’s preserved
    meats have been in constant use in the navy, and it is only,
    I believe, latterly that they have been found to consist of such
    disgusting material. Disgusting, however, as the material is,
    the state of putrefaction is certainly infinitely worse; but in
    a cold climate this is fortunately not likely to have occurred.
    Had any of the preserved meats, supplied to Sir John
    Franklin’s ships been of a bad description I think it would
    have been known, inasmuch as Capt. Fitzjames remarked
    to me, that "it was not wise to take a new contract for
    preserved meats from a man who was unknown, merely
    because his tender was lower, while another was willing
    to supply the provisions whose meat had been universally
    approved in the navy."
        Captain Fitzjames was alive to the importance of the sub-
    ject, and would doubtless have discovered and made known
    the fact, had it been so, on the return of the transport
    which accompanied them to Disco; but so far from it, I
    possess a letter from that brave officer — the beloved of all —
    in which he speaks to the very contrary of the provisions
    they were consuming.

Barrow makes several excellent points.

He wasn't completely correct in that Goldner’s first government contract wasn't for Franklin’s ships in 1845. There had been a small contract (less than £250) for Henry Dundas Trotter's Niger expedition of 1841. However, the supply for Franklin's ships was a much larger and far more important contract which carried with it the prospect of future sales on a vastly different scale. Barrow's point that Goldner would have been motivated to provide only the very best provisions is perfectly valid as to do otherwise would have been business suicide.

The product had been in use on a large scale for a long time without complaint. The recent report of disgusting material could not be reasonably used to imply a problem with goods provided six or seven years previously.

Commander Fitzjames was an experienced officer very alert to the possibility that a contractor might supply inferior goods. It was after all an everyday occurrence. In fact he was not correct that the preserved provisions had been supplied on the basis of lowest bidder in this case. If there had been a problem with any of the provisions then reports to that effect would certainly have been sent back with the Barretto Junior. On the contrary, Fitzjames' report of the provisions was positive. We also know from a letter of James Thompson, Engineer of HMS Terror, that preserved meat was served out three times per week.

Barrow's final point refers to the empty tin canisters carefully piled up Cape Riley. Actually they were on Beechey Island - the other side of Erebus and Terror Bay. Standard practice was to throw condemmed stores over the side of the ship so the the fact that these cans were all perfectly empty is suggestive that their contents was serviceable and had been consumed. 

Good as these arguments are, Barrow is not speaking in any official capacity. To fully acquit Golder would require the authority of the State. The subject would soon be raised in the House of Commons.

The Newspaper Column Which damned Goldner

The Times newspaper of the mid-Victorian era carried, on page 7, a column titled "Naval Intelligence". As might be expected, the column reported all manner of snippets of news on subjects connected with Her Majesty's Navy.

From Saturday, January 3, 1852, the column began a series of items detailing, in lurid detail, the condemnation of stores which had begun the previous Tuesday (December 30) at the Royal Clarence victualling establishment at Gosport near Portsmouth.

Times, January 3, 1852

            NAVAL INTELLIGENCE
                                                   PORTSMOUTH FRIDAY,

THE PRESERVED MEAT OF THE NAVY.

    A board of examination, consisting of Mr. John Davies,
R.N., master-attendant of the Royal Clarence Victualling
Establishment, Gosport; Mr. Joseph Pinhorn, R.N.,
storekeeper; and Dr. Alexander M'Kechnie, surgeon and
medical storekeeper of the Royal Naval Hospital, Haslar,
has been employed since Tuesday last in examining the
cases of preserved meats supplied by contract to the
Navy, the Admiralty having cause to suspect their
purity. The examination has disclosed some horrible
facts. The canisters containing the meat are, upon the average,
about 10lb canisters. On Tuesday, 643 of them were opened,
out of which number no fewer than 573 were condemned,
their contents being masses of putrefaction. On Wednesday,
779 canisters were opened, out of which number, 734 were
condemned. On Thursday, 791 canisters were opened,
out of which number, 744 were condemned. On Friday
(this day), 494 canisters were opened, out of which,
459 were condemned. Thus, out of 2707 canisters of meat
opened, only 197 have proved fit for human food, those
condemned for the most part containing such substances as
pieces of heart, roots of tongue, pieces of palates, pieces of
tongues, coagulated blood, pieces of liver, ligaments of
the throat, pieces of intestines— in short, garbage and
putridity in a horrible state, the stench arising from which
is most sickening, and the sight revolting. The examining
board and party were compelled to use profusely Sir W.
Burnett's disinfecting fluid, to keep off, or in the hope of
keeping off, pestilence. To-day, however, they deemed it
prudent to desist from further exposure for a time, to guard
against danger, and will consequently not proceed with
the examination until next week, the greater part of which will
be taken up with the filthy investigation, as there were up-
wards of 6000 canisters to examine at the commencement.
This stuff was supplied to the Admiralty, and delivered into
store at the Clarence yard last November twelvemonth,
warranted equal to sample, and to keep sound and consuma-
ble for five years. We are informed it came from Galatz,
in Moldavia. The few canisters containing meat fit for human
beings to eat have been distributed, under the direction of
Captain Superintendent Parry, to the deserving poor of the
neighbourhood, and those containing the putrid stock have
been conveyed to Spithead in lighters, and thrown overboard.
The consequences of such frauds as this cannot be too seriously
estimated. Suppose, for instance, Franklin and his party to
have been supplied with such food as that condemned,
and relying upon it as their mainstay in time of need, the
very means furnished for saving their lives may have
bred a pestilence or famine among them, and been their
destruction.

Times, January 7, 1852

             NAVAL INTELLIGENCE
                                                   PORTSMOUTH Tuesday,

    The examination of the remaining stock of "preserved
meat" in store at Clarence-yard was resumed by the officers
forming the board this morning; but they were again
obliged to leave off prematurely, owing to the nausea en-
gendered by their unwholesome task. They opened 497
canisters, varying in the amount of their contents from
10lb. to 10½lb. each, 466 of which were condemned and
thrown overboard at Spithead, and 31 only considered fit to
let pass for distribution among the poor. Each day brings
to light some item of disgust in the matter of the com-
modity sealed up as "preserved meat" To-day we have
inspected clots of hair, a piece of intestine with the manure
in it, a huge lump of gangrenous kidney, and such like filthy
items. But for the great efficacy of the disinfecting solution of
Dr. Sir William Burnett, the Director-General of the Medical
Department of the Navy, which is profusely used in the
store where the examination is going on, it would be im-
possible for the officers to prosecute their investigation for
long together, owing to the sickening stench arising from
the stuff around them. There remain about 2,600 more
cases to open, which will occupy the rest of the week.
This afternoon Dr. Twynam, an experimental agriculturalist,
applied to purchase a quantity of the offal condemned, with
the view of its forming the matrix of ammoniacal manure,
but no item of it was allowed thus to escape, and the gen-
tleman was recommended by the authorities to make his
application to the Lords of the Admiralty.
Times, January 8, 1852

             NAVAL INTELLIGENCE
                                                   PORTSMOUTH Wendesday,

    This morning the examination of the canisters of "pre-
served meats" was resumed at the Royal Clarence Victualling
Establishment, and so far from the investigation exhibiting
any improvement in the stock, as the board progressed with
their labour, the result showed a realization of still worse
delinquency. Out of 300 canisters, of the respective size
of 10lbs., 10½lb., 10¾lbs., and 11 lbs. each, only one was
suffered to pass as consumable, the rest were condemned,
and thrown overboard at sea. The contents exposed
to-day were chiefly loosc putrid matter, now and then
varied with a few stones, entrails with the excrement in
them, kidneys green with decomposition, lumps of heart,
and in many cases whole hearts festering with putridity,
coagulated blood in great abundance, tallow, lumps
of tendons, garbage, grease, and offal. After three
hours' labour the officers forming the board were com-
pelled to leave off, the stench was so great; indeed, it would
have overpowered them, but that a man was ever and anon
employed in well saturating the floor about them with Sir
William Burnett's disinfecting fluid, with the extra
precaution of a blanket saturated with it being hung up imme-
diately contiguous to the bench whereon the contents of
the canisters were emptied. After standing for an hour, I
was compelled to quit the store from the overpowering
stench, and Dr. M'Kechnie (the medical officer of the
Board of Examination) also felt sick from the influence of the
noxious odour, soon after commencing his labours in the
morning. The examination of the contents of the canisters
is conducted upon the fairest principle—the top part and
the bottom part of each canister being alternately selected
to commence upon, and the contents of the whole are
gradually exposed and brought under inspection. Due notice
of the intended examination was given to the contractor's agent
and his sureties, requesting their attendance, but no one
has appeared, and the contractor himself is not to be found.
At the commencement of this investigation, on Tuesday week,
there were 6,660 canisters, varying in size from 4 lbs. to 12lbs.,
and some of 32 lbs. each. and about three months ago, when
the stench arising from the store in which they were kept
made the authorities of the Clarence-yard suspect some-
thing was wrong, the agents to the contractor came down
and took away 2,000 canisters (containing 17.000 lbs. of
stuff) without opening them. This contract has long since
been paid for. The goods are warranted to last sound and
wholesome for five years after delivery into Admiralty store.
After the 300 canisters above mentioned were examined to-
day, one of the canisters of 32 lbs. was opened, labelled "Gold-
ner's patent stewed beef," and bearing the following direc-
tions :—"The canister to be put into a saucepan with warm
water and boiled about 15 minutes, then the meat to be taken
out, and add to the gravy a portion of water, rice, or any
vegetables, and an admirable dish will be obtained." This
"admirable dish," without the aid of the saucepan, rice,
and vegetables, presented a sickening mass of revolting de-
composition. It was intended as the food of 40 seamen,
marines, or boys of Her Majesty's fleet. The examining offi-
cers intend to take rest to morrow from their disgusting
task, and will not resume it until Friday. About 2,000
more canisters remain to be examined. That "pre-
served meat" from this stock had been issued to sea-going
ships we know, as Commodore Lambert, of the Fox, on the
East India station, returned a lot, with the report that
after partaking of some of it those who had done so had
been seized with sickness, &c.; and we believe Commodore
Martin, of the Prince Regent, 90, on the Lisbon station,
also had some of it, and returned it ; and so doubtless
have many other ships.

These three paragraphs amount to a nauseating tally of putrid garbage which disgusted the readership and roused a hue and cry that something must be done to root out the evil of crooked contractors and incompetent victualling officials.

It certainly destroyed Goldner's reputation and cemented him in the role of an almost pantomime villain and bogeyman for the next 150 years or more.

What interests me is the fact that it wasn't the cans of preserved meat but actually the newspaper reports reproduced above which had the greater proportion of garbage. There can be no doubt that Goldner was falsely accused. This point will be expanded in future posts.

Cannibalism: Charles Dickens v. Dr. John Rae, Part 4.

The concluding installment of the exchange between Charles Dickens and Dr John Rae was published 165 years ago today. Your comments are welcome below or on the Facebook group Remembering the Franklin Expedition.

Transcription and original page images at http://www.djo.org.uk/household-words/volume-x/page-457.html

HOUSEHOLD WORDS

No. 248                      Saturday, December 30, 1854                    457

DR. RAE'S REPORT.

DR. RAE'S communication to us on the
subject of his Report, which was begun last
week, resumes and concludes as follows:

When the Esquimaux have an object to
gain, they will not hesitate to tell a falsehood,
but they cannot lie with a good grace;
"they cannot lie like truth," as civilised men
do. Their fabrications are so silly and
ridiculous, and it is so easy to make them
contradict themselves by a slight cross-
questioning, that the falsehood is easily
discovered. I could give a number of instances
of this, but shall confine myself to two.

When Sir John Richardson descended the
M‘Kenzie in 1848, a great number of Esquimaux
came off in their canoes ; they told us
that on an island to which they pointed, a
number of white people had been living for
some time ; that they had been living there
all winter, and that we ought to land to see
them. Their story was altogether so incredible,
that we could not have a moment's
doubt or difficulty in tracing its object. They
wished to get us on shore in order to have a
better opportunity of pillaging our boats, as
they did those of Sir John Franklin; for it
must be remembered that the Esquimaux at
the M‘Kenzie and to the westward are
different from any of those to the eastward.
The former, notwithstanding the frequent
efforts of the Hudson's Bay Company to
effect a peace, are at constant war with the
Louchoux Indians, and consequently with
the "white men," as they think the latter,
by supplying guns and ammunition to the
Louchoux, are their allies.

Another instance excited much interest
in England when it was first made known
here. It was reported to Captain M‘Clure
by an Esquimaux, that one of a party of
white men had been killed by one of his
tribe near Point Warren. That the white
men built a house there, but nobody knew
how they came, as they had no boat; and
that they went inland. When asked "when
this took place?" the reply was, that "it
might be last year or when I was a child."

How any one could place any faith in such
a report as this, I am at a loss to discover.
Any man at all acquainted with the native
character, would in a moment set down this
tale at its proper value; at least Sir John Rich-
ardson and I did—and the first is high autho-
rity. Indeed, throughout the whole of Captain
or Commander M‘Clure's communication
with the natives in the neighbourhood of the
M‘Kenzie, he appears to have been admirably
imposed upon by them. Let us again get at
a fact or two.

He is told by a chief that the Esquimaux
go so far to the westward to trade, instead of
to the M‘Kenzie, "because, at the latter
place, the white man had given the Indians
very bad water, which killed many and made
others foolish (drunk), and that they would
not have any such water. From this it
evidently appears that the Company lose
annually many valuable skins, which find
their way to the Colvill instead of to the
M‘Kenzie."

Let us quietly examine the above
statements. It is well known that since the
M‘Kenzie has been discovered, ardent spirits
have not been admitted within the district, for
the natives. At present, and for many years
back spirits or wines have not been allowed to
enter the M‘Kenzie or its neighbouring
district of Athabasca, as allowances for either
officers or men in the Hudson's Bay
Company's service, so that the natives might not
have it to say that we took for ourselves
what we would not give to them. We do not
know, nor do I think that there are, any
Russian trading posts on the Colvill. The true
reason that these Esquimaux do not trade
with the Hudson's Bay Company is, that the
former are constantly at war with the
Louchoux. Frequent attempts have been made to
effect a reconciliation between these tribes,
but hitherto without success.

Captain M‘Clure tells us that the Esquimaux
informed him that "they had no communication
with any person belonging to the
Great River" (M‘Kenzie); yet, strange to say,
he intrusts the very despatches in which this
is mentioned, to natives of the same tribe,
and indulges the hope that his "letter may
reach the Hudson's Bay Company this year,"
(one thousand eight hundred and fifty). In
another case, Captain M‘Clure mentions
that he gave a gun and ammunition to an
Esquimaux chief, to deliver a despatch into
the hands of the Hudson's Bay Company. In
any case, prepayment is acknowledged to be
 
[458]
a bad plan, but worst of all in that of a
savage with whom you are unacquainted, and
on whom you have no hold. Had the pay
depended upon the performance of the
service, the despatch might have had some
chance of reaching its destination.

I have had some opportunities of studying
Esquimaux character; and, from what I have
seen, I consider them superior to all the tribes
of red men in America. In their domestic
relationship they show a bright example to
the most civilised people. They are dutiful
sons and daughters, kind brothers and sisters,
and most affectionate parents. So well is the
first of these qualities understood among
them, that a large family is considered wealth
by a father and mother—for, the latter well
know that they will be carefully tended by
their offspring, well clothed and fed, whilst a
scrap of skin or a morsel of food is to be
obtained, as long as a spark of life remains;
and, after death, that their bodies will be
properly placed either on or under the ground,
according to the usage of the tribe.

I do not stand alone in the high opinion I
have formed of the Esquimaux character.
At the Hudson's Bay Company's establishments
of Fort George on the east, and
Churchill on the west, coast of Hudson's
Bay, where the Esquimaux visit, they are
looked upon in an equally favourable light.
The Moravian missionaries on the Labrador
coast find the Esquimaux honest and
trustworthy, and employ them constantly
and almost exclusively as domestic servants.
The report of the residents in the Danish
settlements on the west shores of Greenland,
is no less favourable; and although I have no
special authority for saying so, I believe
that Captain Perring's opinions are similar.
During the two winters I passed at Repulse
Bay, I had men with me who had been, at
some time of their lives, in all parts of the
Hudson's Bay Company's territories. These
men assured me that they had never seen
Indians so decorous, obliging, unobtrusive,
orderly, and friendly, as the Esquimaux.

Oh! some one may remark, perhaps they
have some private reason for this.

Now, my men had not any "private reason"
for saying so. I firmly believe, and can
almost positively assert, that no case of
improper intercourse took place between them
and the natives of Repulse Buy during the
two seasons I remained there—which is more,
I suspect, than most of the commanders of
parties to the Arctic Sea can truthfully affirm.
A number of instances (principally
shipwrecks), are brought forward to show that
cannibalism has not been usually resorted to
in cases of extreme want; that it is the exception,
not the rule. Yet not one of those
properly represent the probable position of Sir
John Franklin's party. In all the cases
above alluded to, the parties suffering were
deprived of water as well as of food. We all
know that when any one suffers from two
painful sensations, but painful in different
degrees, the more severe of the two prevents
the lesser from being felt.

Thirst causes a far more painful sensation
than hunger, and consequently, whilst the
first remains unappeased, the pangs of the
other are very slightly, if at all, felt. In
the case of Franklin's party, their thirst
could be easily assuaged, and consequently
the pangs of hunger would be felt the more
intensely. Even Franklin's former disastrous
journey (from the narrative of which large
extracts have been made) is not a parallel case.
In it the suffering party had generally
something or other every few days to allay
the cravings of hunger. They had pieces of
old leather, tripe de roche, and an infusion of
the tea-plant. Unfortunately, near the mouth
of Back's Fish River, there are none of
the above named plants,—nothing but a
barren waste with scarcely a blade of
grass upon it. Much stress is laid on the
moral character and the admirable discipline
of the crews of Sir John Franklin's ships.
What their state of discipline may have
been I cannot say, but their conduct at the
very last British port they entered was not
such as to make those who knew it, consider
them very deserving of the high eulogium
passed upon them in Household Words.
Nor can we say that the men, in extreme
cases of privation, would maintain that state
of subordination so requisite in all cases,
but more especially during danger and
difficulty.

We have, I am sorry to say, but too many
recent instances of disagreement and differences
among the officers employed on the
Arctic service. It is well known in naval
circles that, in one vessel which has not yet
arrived from the north, there will be two
or three courts martial as soon as she reaches
home. To place much dependence on the
obedience and good conduct of the comparatively
uneducated seamen, if exposed to the
utmost extremes of distress, when their
superiors, without having any such excuse,
have forgotten themselves on a point of such
vital importance, would be very unreasonable.
Besides, seamen generally consider
themselves, when they have lost their ship
and set foot on shore, as being freed from
that strict discipline to which they would
readily submit themselves when on board.

As these observations have already attained
a much greater length than I at first anticipated,
I shall refrain from mentioning, as I
intended, one or two instances of persons fully
as well educated as the generality of picked
seamen usually are, and brought up as
Christians, having, in cases of extreme want,
had recourse to the "last resource," as a
means of maintaining life.

I am aware of the difficulties I have to
encounter in replying to the article on the
"Lost Arctic Voyagers." That the author
of that article is a writer of very great ability

[459]
and practice, and that he makes the best
use of both to prove his opinions, is very
evident. Besides, he takes the popular view of
the question, which is a great point in his favour.
To oppose this, I have nothing but a small
amount of practical knowledge of the question
at issue, with a few facts to support my
views and opinions; but, I can only throw
them together in a very imperfect and
unconnected form, as I have little experience in
writing, and, like many men who have led a
wandering and stirring life, have a great
dislike to it. It is seldom that a man can do
well what is disagreeable to him.

That my opinions remain exactly the same
as they were when my report to the Admiralty
was written, may be inferred from all I
have now stated.

That twenty or twenty-five Esquimaux
could, for two months together, continue to
repeat the same story without variation in
any material point, and adhere firmly to it, in
spite of all sorts of cross-questioning, is to me
the clearest proof that the information they
gave me was founded on fact.

That the " white men" were not
murdered by the natives, but that they died of
starvation, is, to my mind, equally beyond a
doubt.

In conclusion, let me remark, that I fully
appreciate the kind, courteous, and flattering
manner in which my name is mentioned by
the writer on the subject of the lost Arctic
Voyagers.

Cannibalism: Charles Dickens v. Dr. John Rae, Part 3.

After a gap of two weeks: John Rae's reply.

Transcription and original page images at http://www.djo.org.uk/household-words/volume-x/page-433.html

HOUSEHOLD WORDS

No. 248                      Saturday, December 23, 1854                    433

THE LOST ARCTIC VOYAGERS.


WE have received the following communication
from DR. RAE. It can have no
better commendation to the attention of our
readers than the mention of his name:—

Observing, in the numbers of this journal
dated the second and ninth of this month, a
very ably-written article on the lost Arctic
voyagers, in which an attempt is made to
prove that Sir John Franklin's ill-fated
party did not die of starvation, but were
murdered by the Esquimaux; and consequently
that they were not driven to the last
dread alternative as a means of protracting
life, permit me to make a few remarks in
support of my information on this painful subject
—information received by me with the
utmost caution, and not one material point of
which was published to the world without
my having some good reason to support it.

First, as regards my interpreter. To compare
either Augustus or Ouligback (who
accompanied Sir John Franklin and Sir John
Richardson in their overland journeys) with
William Ouligback, my interpreter, would be
very unfair to the latter. Neither of the
first two could make themselves understood
in the English language, and did not very perfectly
comprehend the dialect of the natives of
the coast westward of the Coppermine River.

William Ouligback speaks English fluently;
and, perhaps, more correctly than one half of
the lower classes in England or Scotland.

As I could not, from my ignorance of
the Esquimaux tongue, test William Ouligback's
qualifications, I resorted to the only
means of doing so I possessed. There is
an old servant of the company at Churchill,
an honest, trustworthy man, who has acquired
a very fair knowledge of both the
Esquimaux character and the Esquimaux
language. This man informed me that young
Ouligback could be perfectly relied on; that
he would tell the Esquimaux exactly what
was said, and give the Esquimaux reply with
equal correctness; that when he had any
personal object to gain, he would not scruple
to tell a falsehood to attain it, but in such a
case the untruth was easily discovered by a
little cross-questioning. This description I
found perfectly true.

Again: the natives of Repulse Bay speak
precisely the same language as those of
Churchill, where young Ouligback was
brought up.

The objection offered that my information
was received second-hand, I consider much
in favour of its correctness. Had it been
obtained from the natives who had seen the
dead bodies of our countrymen, I should have
doubted all they told me, however plausible
their tale might have appeared; because had
they, as they usually do, deposited any property
under stones in the neighbourhood,
they would have had a very excellent cause
for attempting to mislead me.

That ninety-nine out of a hundred interpreters
are under a strong temptation
to exaggerate, may be true. If so, my
interpreter is the exception, as he did not
like to talk more than he could possibly
help. No doubt had I offered him a premium
for using his tongue freely he might
have done so; but not even the shadow of a
hope of a reward was held out.

It is said that part of the information
regarding cannibalism was conveyed to me
by gestures. This is another palpable mistake,
which is likely to mislead. I stated
in one of my letters to the Times that the
natives had preceded me to Repulse Bay;
and, by signs, had made my men left in
charge of the property there (none of whom
spoke a word of Esquimaux) comprehend
what I had already learnt through the interpreter.

I do not infer that the officer who lay upon
his double-barrelled gun defended his life to
the last against ravenous seamen; but that
he was a brave, cool man, in the full possession
of his mental faculties to the last; that
he lay down in this position as a precaution,
and, alas! was never able to rise again; and
that he was among the last, if not the very
last, of the survivors.

The question is asked, was there any fuel
in that desolate place for cooking the contents
of the kettles? I have already mentioned
in a letter to the Times how fuel
might have been obtained. I shall repeat
my opinion with additions:—When the
Esquimaux were talking with me on the
subject of the discovery of the men, boats,
tents, &c., several of them remarked that

[434]
it was curious no sledges were found at
the place. I replied that the boat was
likely fitted with sledge-runners that screwed
on to it. The natives answered, that sledges
were noticed with the party of whites
when alive, and that their tracks on the ice
and snow were seen near the place where
the bodies were found. My answer then
was, That they must have burnt them for
fuel; and I have no doubt but that the kegs
or cases containing the ball and shot must
have shared the same fate.

Had there been no bears thereabouts to
mutilate those bodies—no wolves, no foxes? is
asked; but it is a well-known fact that, from instinct,
neither bears, wolves, nor foxes, nor that
more ravenous of all, the glutton or wolverine,
unless on the verge of starvation, will touch
a dead human body; and the carnivorous
quadrupeds near the Arctic sea are seldom
driven to that extremity.

Quoting again from the article on the lost
Arctic voyagers. "Lastly, no man can with
any show of reason undertake to affirm that
the sad remnant of Franklin's gallant band
were not set upon and slain by the Esquimaux
themselves?"

This is a question which like many
others is much more easily asked than
answered; yet I will give my reasons
for not thinking, even for a moment,
that some thirty or forty of the bravest
class of one of the bravest nations in the
world, even when reduced to the most
wretched condition, and having firearms and
ammunition in their hands, could be
overcome by a party of savages equal in
number to themselves. I say equal in number,
because the Esquimaux to the eastward
of the Coppermine, seldom, if ever, collect
together in greater force than thirty men,
owing to the difficulty of obtaining the
means of subsistence. When Sir John Ross
wintered three years in Prince Regent's
Inlet, the very tribe of Esquimaux who
saw Sir John Franklin's party were
constantly or almost constantly in the
neighbourhood. In the several springs he
passed there, parties of his men were travelling
in various directions; yet no violence was
offered to them, although there was an immense
advantage to be gained by the savages
in obtaining possession of the vessels and their
contents.

In eighteen hundred and forty-six-seven
I and a party of twelve persons wintered at
Repulse Bay. In the spring my men were
divided and scattered in all directions; yet
no violence was offered, although we were
surrounded by native families, among whom
there were at least thirty men. By murdering
us they would have put themselves in
possession of boats and a quantity of cutlery
of great value to them. In the same spring,
when perfectly alone and unarmed, except
with a common clasp knife, which could
have been of no use, I met on the ice four
Esquimaux armed with spear and bow and
arrow. I went up to them, made them
shake hands; and, after exchanging a few
words and signs, left them. In this case
no violence was used; although I had a
box of astronomical instruments on my back,
which might have excited their cupidity.
Last spring, I, with seven men, was almost
in constant communication with a party
four times our number. The savages
made no attempt to harm us. Yet wood,
saws, daggers, and knives were extremely
scarce with them, and by getting possession
of our boat, its masts and oars, and the
remainder of our property, they would have
been independent for years.

What appears to me the most conclusive
reason for believing the Esquimaux report, is
this: the natives of Repulse Bay, although
they visit and communicate for mutual advantage
with those further west, both dislike
and fear their neighbours, and not without
cause; as they have behaved treacherously
to them on one or two occasions. So
far do they carry this dislike, that they
endeavoured, by every means in their power,
to stimulate me to shoot several visitors to
Repulse Bay, from Pelly Bay, and from near
Sir John Ross's wintering station in Prince
Regent's Inlet.

Now, is it likely that, had they possessed
such a powerful argument to excite—as they
expected to do—my anger and revenge as the
murder of my countrymen, would they not
have made use of it by acquainting me with
the whole circumstances, if they had any such
to report?

Again, what possible motive could the
Esquimaux have for inventing such an awful
tale as that which appeared in my report to
the secretary of the Admiralty. Alas! these
poor people know too well what starvation is,
in its utmost extremes, to be mistaken on
such a point. Although these uneducated
savages—who seem to be looked upon by
those who know them not, as little better
than brutes—resort to the "last resource"
only when driven to it by the most dire
necessity. They will starve for days before
they will even sacrifice their dogs to satisfy
the cravings of their appetites.

One or two facts are worth a hundred
theories on any subject. On meeting some
old acquaintances among the natives at
Repulse Bay, last spring, I naturally enquired
about others that I had seen there in eighteen
hundred and forty-six and forty-seven.
The reply was, that many of them had died
of starvation since I left, and some from a
disease which, by description, resembled influenza.
Among the party that died of
starvation was one man whom I well knew
—Shi-makeck—and for whom I enquired by
name. I learnt that this man, rather than
endure the terrible spectacle of his children
pining away in his presence, went out and
strangled himself. Another, equally well

[435]
known to me, being unable, I suppose, to
support the panics of hunger, stripped
off his clothes, and exposed himself to
cold, until he was frozen to death. In
several instances, on this occasion, cannibalism
had been resorted to, and two
women were pointed out to me as having had
recourse to this "last resource." It may be,
I have only the words of "babbling and false
savages who are, without exception, in heart,
covetous, treacherous, and cruel," in support
of what I say.

Let us enquire slightly into that want of
truthfulness so frequently and indiscriminately
charged against savages in general,
and the Esquimaux in particular:—When
that most distinguished of Arctic navigators—
Sir Edward Parry—wintered at
Winter Island, not Winter Harbour, and at
Igloolik, in the Straits of the Fury and
Hecla, he met many of the very tribe of
Esquimaux that I saw at Repulse Bay.
From these Sir Edward received information
and tracings of the coast west of Melville
Peninsula, surrounding a bay named by the
natives—Akkoolee.

This Esquimaux tracing or delineation of
coast was entered in the charts in dotted
lines, until my survey of eighteen hundred
and forty-seven showed that, in all material
points, the accounts given by the natives
were perfectly correct. When Sir John Ross
wintered three years in Prince Regent's
Inlet, the natives drew charts of the coast
line to the southward of his position, and
informed him that, in that direction, there
was no water communication leading to the
western sea.

Sir John Ross's statements, founded on
those of the natives were not believed at the
Admiralty, nor my own, in eighteen hundred
and forty-seven, although I saw the land all
the way, and in which I was supported by
Esquimaux information. The authorities at
the Admiralty would still have Boothia an
Island. Last spring I proved beyond the
possibility of a doubt, the correctness of my
former report, and consequently the truthfulness
of the Esquimaux; for, where parties of
high standing at home would insist on having
nothing but salt water, I travelled over a
neck of land or isthmus only sixty miles broad.

On conversing with the natives about the
different parties of whites, and the ships and
boats they had seen, they described so perfectly
the personal appearance of Sir John
Ross and Sir James Ross—although the men
spoken with had not seen these gentlemen—
that any one acquainted with these officers
could have recognised them. The natives on
one point set me right, when they thought I
had made a mistake. I told them that the
two chiefs (Sir J. and Sir J. C. Ross) and
their men had all got home safe to their own
country. They immediately remarked, "that
this was not true, for some of the men had
died at the place where the vessel was left."
I, of course, alluded only to that portion of
the party who had got away from Regent's
Inlet in safety. It must be remembered that
this circumstance occurred upwards of twenty
years ago, and consequently is an instance of
correctness of memory and truthfulness that
would be considered surprising among people
in an advanced state of civilisation.

The peculiarities of the Great Fish River,
and of the coast near its mouth, has been so
minutely described by Sir George Back, and
so beautifully illustrated by his admirable
drawings, that they can easily be understood
by any one. The Esquimaux details on this
subject agreed perfectly with those of Sir
George Back: the river was desciibed as full
of falls and rapids, and that many Esquimaux
dwelt on or near its banks. They described
the land about a long day's journey (which,
with dogs and sledges, is from thirty-five to
forty miles) to the north-west of the
mouth of the river, as low and flat, without
hills of any kind, agreeing in every particular
with the descriptions of Sir George Back and
Simpson.

They told me that the top of the cairn
erected by Dease and Simpson at the Castor
and Pollux River had fallen down. This I
found to be true; and afterwards, on asking
them in which direction it had fallen, they
said towards the east. True again. I showed
two men, who said they had been along the
coast which I had traced, my rough draft of
a chart. They immediately comprehended
the whole; examined and recognised the
several points, islands, &c., laid down upon
it; gave me their Esquimaux names, showed
me where they had had "caches;" which I
actually saw.

Another Esquimaux, on learning that we
had opened a "cache," in which we found a
number of wings and heads of geese which
had lain long there, and were perfectly denuded
of flesh, said that the "cache"
belonged to him. Thinking that he was
stating a falsehood so as to obtain some
reward for having interfered with his property,
I produced my chart, and told him to
show me the island, among a number of
similar ones all small, on which his "cache"
was; he, without a moment's hesitation,
pointed to the right island.

Having dwelt thus much on the trustworthiness
of the Esquimaux, I shall next
touch on their disposition and aptitude to
falsehood; but this I must defer for the
present.

We will merely append, as a commentary
on the opinion of our esteemed friend,
DR. RAE, relative to the probabilities of the
Esquimaux besetting a forlorn and weak
party, the speciality of whose condition that
people are quite shrewd enough to have perceived;
an extract from Sir John Barrow's
account of Franklin's and Richardson's second
journey:—

[436]
''Thus far all went on well; but an accident
happened while the crowd was pressing
round the boats, which was productive of
unforeseen and very annoying consequences:

"'A kaiyack being overset by one of the
Lion's oars, its owner was plunged into the
water with his head in the mud, and apparently
in danger of being drowned. We
instantly extricated him from his unpleasant
situation, and took him into the boat until
the water could be thrown out of his
kaiyack; and Augustus, seeing him shivering
with cold, wrapped him up in his own
great coat. At first he was exceedingly
angry, but soon became reconciled to his
situation; and, looking about, discovered that
we had many bales, and other articles in the
boat, which had been concealed from the
people in the kaiyacks, by the coverings
being carefully spread over all. He soon
began to ask for everything he saw, and
expressed much displeasure on our refusing
to comply with his demands; he also, we
afterwards learned, excited the cupidity of
others by his account of the inexhaustible
riches in the Lion, and several of the younger
men endeavoured to get into both our boats,
but we resisted all their attempts.'

"They continued, however, to press, and
made many efforts to get into the boats,
while the water had ebbed so far that it was
not knee-deep at the boats, and the younger
men, waiting in crowds around them, tried to
steal everything they could reach. The Reliance
being afloat, was dragged by the
crowd towards the shore, when Franklin
directed the crew of the Lion (which was
aground and immoveable) to endeavour to
follow her, but the boat remained fast until
the Esquimaux lent their aid and dragged
her after the Reliance. One of the Lion's
men perceived that the man who was upset
had a pistol under his shirt, which it was
discovered had been stolen from Lieutenant
Back, and the thief, seeing it to be noticed,
leaped out of the boat and joined his countrymen,
carrying with him the great coat which
Augustus had lent him.

"'Two of the most powerful men, jumping
on board at the same time, seized me by the
wrists and forced me to sit between them;
and as I shook them loose two or three times,
a third Esquimaux took his station in front
to catch my arm whenever I attempted to
lift my gun, or the broad dagger which hung
by my side. The whole way to the shore they
kept repeating the word 'teyma,' beating
gently on my left breast with their hands,
and pressing mine against their breasts. As
we neared the beach, two oomiaks, full of
women, arrived, and the 'teymas' and vociferation
were redoubled. The Reliance was
first brought to the shore, and the Lion close
to her a few seconds afterwards. The three
men who held me now leaped ashore, and
those who remained in their canoes, taking
them out of the water, carried them to a
little distance. A numerous party then
drawing their knives, and stripping themselves
to the waist, ran to the Reliance, and
having first hauled her as far up as they
could, began a regular pillage, handing the
articles to the women, who, ranged in a row
behind, quickly conveyed them out of sight.'

"In short, after a furious contest, when
knives were brandished in a most threatening
manner, several of the men's clothes cut
through, and the buttons of others torn from
their coats, Lieutenant Back ordered his
people to seize and level their muskets, but
not to fire till the word was given. This had
the desired effect, the whole crowd taking to
their heels and hiding themselves behind the
drift-timber on the beach. Captain Franklin
still thought it best to temporise so long as
the boats were lying aground, for armed as
the Esquimaux were with long knives, bows,
arrows, and spears, fire-arms could not have
been used with advantage against so numerous
a host; Franklin, indeed, states his conviction,
'considering the state of excitement to
which they had worked themselves, that the
first blood which his party might unfortunately
have shed, would instantly have been
revenged by the sacrifice of all their lives.'

"As soon as the boats were afloat and
making to a secure anchorage, seven or eight
of the natives walked along the beach, entered
into conversation with Augustus, and
invited him to a conference on shore. 'I was
unwilling to let him go,' says Franklin, 'but
the brave little fellow entreated so earnestly
that I would suffer him to land and reprove
the Esquimaux for their conduct, that I at
length consented.' On his return, being desired
to tell what he had said to them, 'he
had told them,' he said—

"'Your conduct has been very bad, and
unlike that of all other Esquimaux. Some of
you even stole from me, your countryman
but that I do not mind,—I only regret that
you should have treated in this violent
manner the white people, who came solely to
do you kindness. My tribe were in the same
unhappy state in which you now are, before
the white people came to Churchill, but at
present they are supplied with everything
they need, and you see that I am well
clothed; I get all that I want, and am very
comfortable. You cannot expect, after the
transactions of this day, that these people
will ever bring goods to your country again,
unless you show your contrition by restoring
the stolen goods. The white people love the
Esquimaux, and wish to show them the same
kindness that they bestow upon the Indians.
Do not deceive yourselves, and suppose they are
afraid of you; I tell you they are not; and
that it is entirely owing to their humanity
that many of you were not killed to-day; for
they have all guns, with which they can
destroy you either when near or at a distance.
I also have a gun, and can assure
you, that if a white man had fallen, I would

[437]
have been the first to have revenged his
death.'

"The language of course is that of Franklin,
who however gives it as the purport of
Augustus's speech, and adds, 'his veracity is
beyond all question with the party.' 'We
could perceive,' says Franklin, 'by the shouts
of applause, with which they filled the pauses
in his language, that they assented to his
arguments;' [that is, to his representation of
the superior power of those white men]; 'and
he told us they had expressed great sorrow
for having given so much cause of offence.'
He said, moreover, that they pleaded ignorance,
having never before seen white men;
that they had seen so many fine things
entirely new to them, that they could not
resist the temptation of stealing; they promised
never to do the like again; and gave
a proof of their sincerity by restoring the
articles that had been stolen. And thus
in an amicable manner was the affray concluded."