The Sun. — London, England, 1859-04-07 00:00:00

the shoulders of the Ministers. (Hetir, hear.) On them be the consequences which may result from the dissolution of Parliament which they have advised. As reference has been made to proceedings elsewhere, I cannot sit down with out expressing my astonishment that in that place notice should, in a most irregular and unprecedented manner, have been taken of proceedings in this house—(hear)—and an opinion been expressed upon them contrary to that of the highest authority in this house. (Cheers.) We sometimes inspect the journals of the other House of Parliament, and I have no doubt that members of that house sometimes in spect ours, and by that means they obtain information as to what is passing within the walls of this house ; but this is the first time that I have ever heard any person holding the distinguished position occupied by the noble peer who has been referred to openly criticise in' that place the pro ceedings of this house, and take upon himself to cite autho rities with respect to them which this house does not in the slightest degree recognise. (Cheers.) lam glad to hear the right hon. baronet say that the dissolution which has been advised in this case and that which took place in 1857 stand upon exactly the same grounds. The issue in that case was a definite one. There was a vote of the House of Commons upon a particular question of policy upon which my noble friend advised the Crown that a dissolution might take place with a view to an appeal to the country. That appeal was distinctly answered. I only hope that on the present occasion the issue will be as clearly understood— (cheers and counter cheers)—and that, the House of Com mons-having by an adverse vote condemned two of the main features essentially bound up with the principle of the bill for amending the representation of the people submitted by the Government, we shall have the opinion of the country and of the constituencies upon those parts of the measure. (Hear, hear.) Colonel FRENCH said that, although no one would question the power of the Government to advise her Ma jesty to dissolve Parliament, it was equally well understood that it was not justifiable for them to take that course unless they had some hope of a majority being returned to support their opinions. That was now the point of dif ference. That was the point which the Government would have to answer immediately upon the return of the new Parliament. It was strange that the First Lord of the Ad miralty, who had accused the noble lord the member for Tiverton of indirect disrespect to her Majesty, should have overlooked the direct disrespect of which the noble lord at the head of the Government had been guilty in stating else where that he would not under any circumstances recom mend that the noble lord the member for the city of London should be charged with the formation of a Ministry, and that there was a member of that house representing the people with whom, under no circumstances, would her Ma jesty have anything to do. Mr. MALINS saw with great satisfaction the extraor dinary uneasiness with which hon. gentlemen opposite re garded the impending dissolution. (Cheers.) During the last week they had been exceedingly bold, declaring that they were quite indifferent to a dissolution, and would not be coerced by it. The house might now judge what that indifference meant. Why were they so uneasy ? Was the dissolution unconstitutional ; was it improper ? (" Very.") Had her Majesty's advisers done anything which was not in consonance with the best principles of the constitution ? (Hear, hear.) The language of the noble lord the other night was so strong that it was only comprehensible that he intended to follow it up, and that he and his party would take care that there should be no dissolution, because the supplies which were required should not be forthcoming. (Hear, hear.) Was the noble lord in earnest in that threat; and, if so, why had he not followed it up by action ? Was it that the majority on which he counted had melted down to too small dimensions ? Having long beenaccustomed to look upon the noble lord as a man who might in an emergency be relied upon to uphold and support the principles of the English constitution, he was greatly disappointed to find him now disposed to adopt such extreme principles. Sir J. TRELAWNY rose to order. A number of gentle men had given notice of their intention to make motions on going into committee of supply, and it was not fair that other questions should take precedence of them. (Cries of " Go on.") Mr. MALINS said he should like to know what was the issue new tendered to the country. (Hear, hear.) Was it the issue tendered by the noble lord the member for the city of London, who had told them what his Reform Bill was to be ? And was the noblelord the member for Tiverton inclined to adopt it ? (A cry of "He has said so.") Had the noble lord said so ? He had not the good fortune to hear the noble lord, but he understood that he had said that he was not for that bill—(" He did not say anything of the kind")—and unless the reports which had reached him greatly deceived him, the noble lord had expressed himself to the effect that whenever the bill sketched by the noble lord the member for the city was brought in he should be found among its most strenuous supporters—he meant opponents. (A laugh.) Were hon. gentlemen opposite agreed amen.. themselves ? The great majority of them ex pressed anxiety that the present Government should remain in office. (No, no, and hear, hear.) He repeated it, that unless the noble lord was surrounded by a body of gentle men upon whose word no reliance was to be placed, which was the last suggestion he should make, the great ma jority of them did not desire the retirement of the present Goverment. They were not agreed upon the provisions of a Reform Bill. Were noble lords and right honourable gentlemen opposite, when they came into office, prepared to accept the ballot ? Upon no other condition would honourable gentlemen below the gangway give them their support. He presumed that neither the noble lord the member for Tiverton nor the noble lord the member for the city would undertake to conduct the government of the country upon such terms ; but, if so, what was to be the principle of their union in office ? The dis solution of Parliament had been forced upon Ministers, not for the public good, but for party p ur p oses , an d i n th a t light it would be regarded by the country. (Hear, hear.) Sir C. LEWlS.—There has been throughout our recent debates a constant, unfair, and wholly unsuccessful attempt to fii upon this side of the house the responsibility of the present state of affairs. The remarks which have just been made by the hon. and learned member for Wallingford would almost lead the house to suppose that it was my noble friend the member for Tiverton and the gentlemen sitting on this side who have advised the dissolution of Parliament, and who were responsible for that important step. (Hear.) But observe what has been the course of the Government upon this subject. On acceding to power last year they took the Government, according to the expression of my noble friend, with its engagements. I must be permitted to remark, however, that it is a per fectly new doctrine that an Opposition, when it comes into office, abandons its own engagements and adopts those of its antagonists. (Hear, hear.) However, without dwelling upon that part of the subject, I shall only say that Ministers voluntarily undertook the engagement of bringing in a Re form Bill. They promised to do so on various occcasions by declarations of individual members of the Government during the recess, and they announced in the Speech from the Throne their intention of introducing a measure of reform. After mature deliberation that bill was brought forward; it was made the subject of a long and able debate, and by the solemn judgment of the house it was con demned as unsatisfactory. In consequence of the adverse decision of this house they abandoned their bill ; but they do not announce that they will bring in any other measure (hear hear) ' • on the contrary, they state that in the pre s e n t year it is not their intention to propose any other measure of reform, and they appeal to the country against the deci sion of this house. Now, is not that a distinct appeal upon the measure of the Government ? (Hear, hear.) Upon what possible question can it be an appeal if not upon their reform policy, upon their recent bill, and against the ad verse decision of the house in connection therewith. (Hear.) They do not substitute any other measure, and still less do they state what that measure is to be; they simply appeal against the decision of the house, and that decision was pronounced upon their existing Reform Bill. (Cries of " No, no," and cheers.) Sir J. PAKINGTON—It was a refusal to entertain the question. Sit. C. LEWIS--The decision of the house was pro nounced upon the two important characteristics of the bill. (Hear.) Those two points were selected for the decision of the house, and upon those two main points, which included the most essential principles of the bill, the house decided against the Government. (Hear.) Observe what was the conduct of Lord Grey's Government in 1831, when they ap pealed to the country upon the subject of their Reform Bill. That is the case which is most exactly in point. Lord Grey's Government brought in a bill that was condemned by the House of Commons by a considerable majority. The course pursued then was very similar to that which has been taken in the present instance. Upon going into com mittee a resolution was moved, condemning one of the most important parts of the bill, and it was carried, as I have said, by a considerable majority. The Government never for a moment pretended to say that that was not a condemnation of their bill. They stood by the bill ; they went to the country upon the well-known cry, " The bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill." No other issue was raised ; the country pronounced in their favour, and its representatives came to this house, knowing what they had promised to vote upon. (Hear.) A dissolution is now about to take place. I want to how up on w h a t it i s to take place. (Hear.) Up to the present moment no issue has been raised either here or elsewhere beyond this—that the country is asked to express its 'confidence in the Go vernment, in consequence of the policy which they have adopted on the subject of reform. Can they put any other issue before the country ? Can they say that they ask the confidence of the people in respect of a policy which they are about to pursue upon the subject of reform ? No such thing. (Cheers.) Here is their bill ; it was • condemned more or less by every member who spoke in the recent de bate, whether on this or the other side of the house, and upon its merits ministers appeal to the country. (Hear, bear.) Surely they do not go to the country simply upon the question whether they shall retain their offices. That is not a question upon which an appeal can be made to the constituencies. Some principle —something beyond a mere vague expression of confidence—must be implied in an ap peal. (Hear, hear.) Gentlemen on this side ar e no t re sponsible f or the step about to be taken. A bill was sub mitted for our consideration, and we rejected it. We have been told that in doing so we showed a want of respect to the Crown. Observe what hon. gentlemen opposite did last year' with respect to the India Bill. A reconamendation from the Crown wasmade to this house to consider the question of India. The Government prepared a bill carrying that recommendation into effect, and what was the course iaur sued by hon. gentlemen opposite ? Why, they would not allow us even to read the bill a first time, and they met us by a resolution precisely similar to that to which so much object ion has been lately taken. The only distinction, in fact, between the two cases is, that in the one they even refused to allow th e Government to lay their bill on the table, while in the other we reserved our opposition to the second reading, the proper time for it. (Hear, hear.) To say, after a debate of seven nights, which was virtually a debate upon the second reading of the bill, that we have been guilty of disrespect to the Crown, is one of the most monstrous attempts at imposing upon the credulity of the constitutional right y i country which my Parliamentary ex perience can ush. (Cheers.) We have merely exercised o ur right to consider and reject a m easure proposed, Crown, but by the Government, whose acts we arrepaotnlibt them er to canvass and criticise in ever y p oss ibl e way. lies the responsibility of the bill itself and of the dissolution which they have recommended, and the real issue which the country has to decide is—does the Reform policy of the Government, as expressed in that bill, entitle them to the confidence of the public ? (Cheers.) Sir J. PAKINGTON—The right hon, gentleman ap pears to be labouring under a misapprehension 'as to what fell from me upon a former occasion I never said anything so absurd as that any want of respect was shewn to the Crown in not entertaining the Reform Bill, but I did say that the language of the noble lord the member for Tiver ton, on the subject of a dissolution, trenched upon the Royal prerogative, and was wanting in respect to the Crown. Sir C. LEWIS—I did not refer to the remark of the right hon. baronet, that the language held by my noble friend on the subject of a dissolution was disrespectful to the Crown. What I alluded to was an expression used both here and elsewhere, to the effect that we showed a want of respect to the Crown in not entertaining the measure of reform pro posed by the Government. Such an expression was used, and I repeat it is entirely erroneous. (Hear, hear.) Mr, OSBORNE did not rise to discuss the potion of reform, but to protest against the hon. and learned gentle man opposite robbing the printers of Wallingford by ad dressing his constituents through the House of Commons. (A laugh.) We had heard enough of the Rehm debate ; the battle ought to be fought out on the hustings. (Hear, hear.) He was glad the Government had dissilved, because he thought a general election might tend to put parties upon a proper footing. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman concluded by asking the Government whether it was true that they had appointed a member of the House of Com mons to the vacant judgeship of the Irish Encumbered Estates Court, contrary to the report of the Commissioners, and in the face of the decreasing business of the Court ? Mr. S. ESTCOURT replied that a judge had been ap pointed to the Encumbered Estates Court in Ireland, and that the person selected was a member of that house. He could say nothing about the business of the court or the report of the Commissioners ; but he should be glad to answer the question of the hon. gentleman more fully upon a future occasion. Turning to the general question before the house, the right hon. gentleman said the Government did not complain of the course which the noble lord the member for Tiverton had pursued since Monday last ; on the contrary, they thought that his willingness to facilitate the disposal of indispensable business, in order that the dissolution might take place as early as possibla, was con formable with the policy which they themselves adopted in similar circumstances ; but they could not forget that the tone of his speech during the recent debate was one of ab solute defiance apparently founded on the belief that it was ab solutely impossible for them to have recourse to a dissolution. (Hear.) The noble lord recommended them to pursue a course which neither he himself nor any party in that house would have followed, and it was not surprising that his remarks should have created an unpleasant feeling. (Hear.) After all, however, the Government and the Op position must fight out their battle upon the hustings, t.nd he, for one, did not fear the result. - Ministers did not ac cept the recent vote as a defeat of their bill, which, on the contrary, had not been discussed at all. But the real ques tion before the country was, whether the business of the State should continue to be conducted by the present Go vernment or be transferred to other hands. (Hear.) Mr. LINDSAY said that, so far as he was able to judge, the present Government had conducted the affairs of the country well and wisely. But the question at issue was not one of confidence in the Administration, but whether their Reform Bill was satisfactory. Re believed that it was erroneous in its fundamental principles and rude in its con struction, and therefore he had voted against it, though with reluctance and regret. (Hear, hear.) Sir A. AGNEW referred to a statement made the other night by the Minister for War—that in Malta Lord Hill's circular would be strictly adhered to, and that, therefore, the Host would not in future be saluted by the English troops. The fact was, that it was under Lord Hill's circu lar that such salutes were now given. He hoped the hon. and gallant general would reconsider the matter, The hon. baronet then asked the Lord-Advocate when the Royal com mission for inquiring into the working of the Forbes Mac kenzie Act would be issued. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to explain an excess of £790,000 in the expendi ture of 1857-8. Lord NAAS, referring to the question of the hon. mem ber for Dover relative to the Irish Encumbered Estates Court, stated that the vacant judgeship had been filled up in conformity with the provisions of the Act passed last year; and that the business of the Court was amply suffi cient to employ three judges. Mr. MELLOR said that when the Aet was under discus sion last year the house was told that the Court would not require more than two judges ; but it was thought that as Mr. Hargreaves was about to be pensioned off at his full salary, the country might as well have the advantage of his services. In the event, however, of his transference to England, where it was proposed to establish an Estates Court, the understanding was that the vacancy in Dublin would not be filled up. Sir F. BARING did not wish to refer to the topic on which the present discussion commenced, but he understood that it was an order of the house that anything passing in the House of Lords should not be referred to in the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) He concurred in the wisdom of that order, thinking it desirable that they should not amuse themselves or embitter their proceedings by reference to what occurred in another place. But he should like some reciprocity to be displayed—(cheers)—or circumstances might arise which would necessitate the alteration of that order. If accusations and attacks were to be made personally on members of the House of Commons, and they were pre vented answering those attacks by an order of the house, he conceived that then such an order would stand in the way of fairness and justice, and ought no longer to be continued. (Cheers.) He would now advert to another point. It was the old practice that all expenses with respect to the man agement of the revenue should be paid out of the gross re venue. This was bad as a system of account, a great sum of money being thus withdrawn from the supervision of Parliament ; and in 1854 an act was passed prohibiting expenditure for the management of the revenue from be ing paid out of that revenue, and providing that it should only be paid out of money voted by Parliament. He ob served, however, that a contract had been entered into by whichthe Postmaster-General engaged to pay the contractors for the conveyance of mails between England and Ireland the sum of £105,000 out of the revenue of the Post-office, contrary to the provisions of the Act of 17th and 18th Vic., cap. 94. This was entirely against the Act of Parliament, and was wrong both in principle and law. He presumed that this course had not been intentionally pursued, but originated in some blunder in copying an old form of con tract; and he hoped he should be given to understand that it was not the intention of the Government to go back to the old practice. Sir S. NORTHCOTE said the error in question had originated from oversight in copying an old form of con tract ; but it would not have the effect of withdrawing the money from the control of Parliament, for the sum would have to be voted. Nothing was fu.rther from the intention of the Government than to depart from the spirit of the Act of 1854. Mr. W. WILLIAMS was glad to hear that explanation, as in his mind the violation of the Act would be most un pardonable. Mr. WILSON observed that though the contract might be made by the Post-office in perfect conformity with the existing system, yet no money could be paid until after it was voted by that house. If that were not the case it would be quite clear that the whole control of the house would be gone in this respect. (Hear, hear.) The LORD-ADVOCATE in answer to a question put by Sir A. AGNEW, stated that the terms of the commission and the names of the commissioners for inquiring into the publichouse question in Scotland were settled, and that only the formal part of the issue of the commission remained to be done. Sir A. AGNEW inquired whether the commission would be issued before Easter. The LORD-ADVOCATE did not know how long the formal part of the business would occupy. General PEEL, in answer to a question put by Sir A. AGNEW, said that the orders given by Lord Hill would not be altered. Sir D. NORREYS expressed a hope that the noble lord, the member for Tiverton, would be mire precise in reference to his agreement with the noble lord the member for Lon don as to what he proposed to do in his Reform Bill with small boroughs. The house then resolved itself into a committee of SUPPLY. On the vote of £2,000,000 to pay off Exchequer Bonds, payable in May, 1859, Mr. WILSON complained that they were called upon to vote, almost as a matter of form, to renew the debt, instead of paying it off out of the ways and means of the year. Sir S. NORTHCOTE said the object of the vote was to give authority to the Government to pay off a debt which would fall due when the house would not be sitting. After some further discussion the vote was agreed to. £13,277,400 for Exchequer Bills, charged upon the re venue of 1"59, £1,125,000 on account, for payments con nected with the revenue department, were also voted. On the vote of £1,856,000 on account for civil service charges, Mr. LINDSAY proposed to reduce the amount by £lO,OOO, the amount proposed for Kingstown Harbour. Lord NAAS having explained that this sum was for works already in progress The amendment was withdrawn. Mr. E. JAMES drew attention to the large arrears in the Probate and Divorce Court. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the only remedy was to appoint more judges. The arrangement for the assistance of the common law judges having failed, he could hold out no hope that a remedy could be provided in the present session. After a few words from Mr. WALINS, The vote was agreed to. THE NAVY ESTIMATES. Sir J. PAIINGTON—This is the last vote connected with the Civil Service, and it now becomes my duty to pro pose certain votes on account of the navy estimates. It may be remembered that I recently &flounced to the house my intention to lay upon the table the reports of certain committees. Among these were the report of a committee which I had appointed on the machinery of the navy ; and I also proposed to introduce the report of the committee on our dockyard expenditure, and the report of a confidential committee appointed by the Government to investigate the causes of the great increase which has taken place in the naval expenditure of the country.. At the same time I in timated my intention to lay on the table a statement on the , part of the Surveyor of the Navy with reference to the alle gations of the noble lord the member for Sandwich (Lord C. Paget). In consequence, however, of the sudden change of affairs I wish to intimate to the house the course I prc pose to take in reference to these four important documents. I am sorry to say that it will not be in my power to com municate to the present Parliament the report of the Com mittee on Dockyard Expenditure, as they have not yet completed their labours; but the three other reports I laid upon the table three or four evenings since. I wish to take this opportunity of stating that which I ought to have mentioned on an earlier day—namely, that Sir Baldwin Walker has repeatedly expressed to me his anxious desire to face, in the most candid and open, and, as far as he is concerned, the most prompt manner the statements made by the noble and gallant officer. So far as Sir Baldwin Walker is able to meet those statements in writing he has done so. In his reply, which will be in the hands of members.l in a few days, the Surveyor of the Navy has gone fully into the allegations of the noble lord that £5,000,000 of public money have been wasted in reckless expenditure during the last 11 years, and that with respect to certain ships therehas been a reckless and unnecessary expenditure in altering them from time to time while in course of construction. On the part of Sir B. Walker and the shipbuilding department, and I was going to say of the Admiralty, though the present Board have had so little to do with the matter that it would be more correct to say on the part of our predecessors in office, I regret that the sudden dissolution of the present Parliament has put it out of my power to pursue the course which I certainly should otherwise have taken—namely, to move the appointment of a committee, constituted in the fairest manner possible, to inquire into the truth of the alle gations made by the noble and gallant lord, and to ascertain how far they were borne out by the facts. I fear that, in the present state of public affairs, I have no alternative. It 11 indisp ensa b ly necessary to await the assembling of a new Parliament b e f ore these serious statements can be investi gated by a committee of this house, and I must therefore limit myself to the expression of a hope that the written reply made by Sir Baldwin Walker • will have the effect of removing the erroneous impressions which the speech of the noble and gallant officer created. lam quite sure that it will induce the public and the house to suspend their judg ment until an inquiry can take place ; but I hope the in formation furnished is so full as entirely to disper these im pressions. My bon. friend (Sir H, Willoughby) asks for an explanation as to the difference between the sums voted in the year ending March 31, 1858, and - the actual expenditure, which shows an excess of £790,249. This amount is made up of two large items on account of the RUssian and Chinese wars. The sum -of -n64,924 was incurred on account of claims which arose during the Russian war, for which no vote was taken in the navy estimates ; and a second sum of £391,943 was taken out of the £400,000 which was voted for the war with China. These two amounts, with £133,382, which was an excess upon the estimates for that year, toge ther make up the total of £790,249. [Sir H. Willoughby —" Are there any outstanding votes ?"] lam not aware of any outstanding vote in connection with the naval depart ment. The right hon. baronet concluded by proposing a vote of £20,000 on account of the scientific branch. Lord C. PAGET denied that he had ever made a charge of any description against any gentleman connected with the Admiralty or the naval department. (Hear, hear.) He had only, to the best of his ability as a naval officer, calculated what he thought was the expenditure upon the navy. guarding himself at the time by saying that he should be very *inch obliged to his 'right hon. friend if he could contradict the figures laid before the house. By the courtesy of his friend, Sir Baldwin Walker, he had during the last half-hour been furnished with a copy of the paper written by the Surveyor of the Navy. Of course he could not be expected now to enter into details, but he was bound to say that in that document he saw no sub stantial contradiction to the statements he had made re specting the alteration of certain ships. Be that as it might, he hoped that in the new Parliament a committee would be appointed which would go very seriously into this expendi ture in shipbuilding. Meanwhile he would suggest to his right hon. friend that he should come prepared to lay the estimates before the new House of Commons in a more satis factory form. In making the statement he addressed to the house the other night, he (Lord C. Paget) had a vague idea that he was not asking for anything unprecedented, that in former days the naval estimates were prepared exactly in the form which he wished to see adopted, and that it was only within the last 40 years that they had assumed their present unsatisfactory shape. Now, he had consulted old navy estimates, and taking those from 1811 to 1819, he found the ships' names given in a tabular form, as he wished now to see, with the number of their guns, whether building or what was the nature of their repairs, the time when they were taken in hand, and when they would be completed, the charge for the hulls, masts, yards, rigging and stores, while the total charge was given in an other column. The name of every ship in the navy was thus set forth, and the most detailed information was fur nished to the house, at a time, too, when it was of import ance that the French should not be acquainted with our resources. He would now explain how it was that the House of Commons came to be mystified. The lesson was instructive, and he hoped his right hon. friend would profit by it. He had received a letter from Admiral Tucker, who had sent him a pamphlet published in 1849, addressed to the right hon. member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) who was then at the head of the Admiralty. It was at the time when a committeewas sitting on our naval expenditure, and this gentleman, who was thoroughly acquainted with naval affairs, recommended certain reforms, particularly advo cating among other things that there should be a detailed estimate of ships building and in course of alteration, as had been the case in former years : " Formerly," he says, and until the year 1819, the navy estimates used to contain, for each ship in course of building or repair, the following colums of information:-1. Name of the yard, royal or merchant, at home or abroad. 2, That of each ship. 3. Whether building, or nature of the repairs, and whether contracted for, or not • and whether Government did or did not supply any part of materials. 4 and 5. The time when each ship was taken in hand, and when to be completed. 6 and 7. Charge for that year of hull, masts, yards, stores, &c., of that ship. 8. Total cost of the identical ship for that year. With such annual in formation it was very easy to watch some of the conduct of the Board of Admiralty.' The reason for adopting the present form of estimates was thus stated : " At the end of 1818 - terminated some communications which my father, who had been Lord St. Vincent's secre tary, and second secretary to the Board of Admiralty, and who all his life attended to naval affairs, had, by Lord St. Vincent's command, with Lord Melville, respecting the pro gress of work in our dockyards ; when some of my father's statements were ascertained to be so very accurate that he was supposed to have obtained sight of an official document which ought to have been considered confidential. To re move that impression he attended at the Board of Admi ralty, and he did so to the ' entire conviction' of Lord Mel ville and of the Board. A part of the conversation (ofevery word of which I retain a memorandum) is to the present point. ' You have stated, Mr. Tucker,' said Lord Melville, that eight sail of the line is the average annual produce of the yards. How did you get at that information ?" From the navy estimates.' How so ?' asked a sea lord ?" How ? why thus :—The navy estimates show every line-of-battle ship building and repairing, and when she is expected to be finished, and by comparing the estimates of one year with another it will be seen when any ship had been launched or put out of dock.' The members of the board looked at each other and said nothing, but the very next navy estimates assumed the very unintelligible form in which, as regards ships, they have ever since appeared ; while upon every other head they have ever since, year after year, given clearer and clearer information." In a letter accompanying the pamphlet, Admiral Tucker said the old system was put a stop to by Sir G. Cockburn, who, on learning that his father got his figures from the navy estimates, said " I will take care you don't get them for the future." Here, then, was the mystery solved, and he hoped his right hon. friend, perceiving that what was asked for was no new thing, would be disposed to grant that which in itself was but a reasonable demand. (Hear.) Sir J . PAKINGTON assured the noble and gallant lord that he was always happy to receive a lesson when it was a good one. He thought he might venture to say that he had afforded proof to the house of his desire that nothing should be concealed which it was consistent with the public inte rests to disclose. (Hear.) For the present he could only promise his noble friend that he would turn his attention to this matter in the recess, and would consider how far he could submit the estimates in a fuller shape than at present. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LINDSAY saw from the newspapers that tenders had been invited for steam machinery, the supply of which used formerly to be confined to two or three firms. He should like to hear from the right hon. baronet the prise at which the engines were obiained by open competition, as compared with that given when a practical monopoly ex isted. Another point to which he asked attention was as to the anchors supplied to the Admiralty. Some seven or eight years ago he served on a committee which condemned the Admiralty anchor as the worst of several which were exa mined, but this condemned anchor had, nevertheless, con tinued in use on board her Majesty's ships ever since, while the supply remained a monopoly in the hands of the same individual, and the country had continued to pay the monopoly price. He should be glad to hear from the First Lord an explanation on this point. Sir G. PECHEL asked the right hon. gentleman whether his attention had been drawn to Capt. Kynaston's plan for lowering ships' boats at sea, which was described as parti • cularly effective ? Sir C. NAPIER hoped that any committee which might be appointed in the new Parliament would begin at the beginning, and inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. With regard to the Channel squadron he wanted to know what had been the use of the six, or seven, or nine sail-of-the line which composed it ? The ships had been lying idle in harbour, and the officers and men were gaining no experience whatever. When the present state of Europe was taken into consideration he did not think the navy ought to be allowed to remain idle, and he should therefore express a hope that the First Lord of the Admi ralty would issue orders to the effect that the Chanel squa dron should move about from place to place, so that a more perfect practical knowledge of its duties might be ensured. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. PAKINGTON thought the hon. and gallant ad miral was too ready to depreciate the service to which he belonged. (Cries of " Hear, hear," and " No, no.") The gallant officer had commenced his observations by stating that the Channel squadron consisted of six or seven sail of the line, bat he had subsequently set it down at nine, so that he had absolutely contradicted that which he himself had asserted. (Hear, hear.) The fact of the matter, how ever, was that the line of battle ships connected with the Channel squadron amounted at the present moment to 10, and that there were also in connection with it six of the most powerful frigates which had ever been seen in this country ; but the gallant admiral, not content with making contradictory statements, had proceeded tolecture the Board of Admiralty with respect to the places in which the Chan nel squadron was kept. In his opinion, however, the Ad miralty and the officers in command of the Channel squa dron must be allowed to be the best judges as to when it should proceed to sea or remain in harbour. (Hoar, hear.) He could assure the hon. and gallant officer that he was fully alive to the importance of improving the discipline of the squadron, and that nothing would be left undone to promote that object. (Hear, hear.) 'With respect to the question of the hon. member for Tynemouth, in reference to the extension of the area within which tenders for steam engines might be received, he could only say that the mo nopoly which formerly existed—if it were a monopoly—had been destroyed, and that several houses had been invited to send in such tenders. He trusted, however, that he should be excused if he did not enter further into detail on the sub ject on the present occasion. His hon. friend had next pro ceeded to advert to the costliness and inferiority of the an chor used by the Admiralty as contrasted with that which might be obtained in other quarters • but the committ ee would, he trusted, suspend their judgment on that point until certain returns which he had moved for had been laid on the table. When the information which might be ga thered from those returns was supplied it would, he thought, be found that the Admiralty anchor was neither so' inferior nor so costly as his hon. friend seemed to suppose. He should next say one word in reply to the question of the hon. and gallant member for Brighton (Sir G. Pechell) in reference to the invention of Capt. Kynaston for the lower ing of boats. The public was, he admitted, very much in debted to the author of that invention. The experiments with respect to it were still in progress, and no final decision as to its adoption had as yet been made. (Hear, hear.) Sir C. NAPIER defended the justice of the observations which he had made, contending that there were two sail of the line at Gibraltar which the right hon. baronet numbered among the Channel squadron but which might more properly be included in the Mediterranean fleet. He did not think it was fair of the right hon. gentleman to endeavour to blind the committee on so important a subject, while he adhered to the statement that the Channel squadron had been kept for a period of four or five months doing nothing at all. Sir J. PAKINGTON said th a t th 3 vessels which the gallant admiral alluded to as having gone to Gibraltar might in a few days return ; that they had never been attached to the Mediterranean fleet, and might justly be numbered among the Channel squadron. Admiral WALCOT complimented the right hon. baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty upon the manner in which he had, since his accession to office, discharged the duties which it had fallen to his lot to perform. (Hear.). With regard to the Channel squadron being kept in au effi cient state, he would only say that he believed no officer could be better fitted to secure that end than Sir C. Fre mantle, by whom the squadron was commanded. He might also observe that, from all he could learn, the Channel squadron was in a high state of efficiency, and that when occasion arose it would be found prepared to ur hold the honour of the country and the distinguiblied character of the service. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LINDSAY, referring to the observations made by Sir J. Pakington with respect to the Admiralty anchor, said he had taken his statement in reference to it from the report of a committee of that house, in which it was set forth that the Admiralty anchor was the worst of seven descrip tions of anchors, which had been brought under their notice. It appeared that the Admiralty, in accordance with their contract, paid at the rate of £44 10s. to £73 10s. ato for their anchors, whereas they could be supplied by other firms at the rate of from £2O to £3O a ton. The result was a n _ _ unnecessary outlay of 120 per cent. (Hear, hear.) General CODRINGTON urged upon the Government the expediency squadron to ma noeuvre, its efficiency.' -If two withth o e f v c i a e u w sin of g pro the m o.t C i h n ant ships, however, were sent to Gila% Aar, and another to the West Indies, he did not exactly Ir.now how the small num ber of vessels which remained behind could manoeuvre with advantage. . 2 . . . Lord LOVAINE said it mrist not be supposed that be cause two or three ships were detached from the squadron for a time, they must not be regarded as portions of it for all important purposes. The votj was then agreed to, as were also a vote of £50,000 to defray the salaries of the, officers of her Majesty's naval force at home, and one of £B,OOO to defray the salaries of the officers of her Majesty's naval establishments abroad. A vote of £450,000 for the wages of the artificers and labourers in her Majesty's dockyards and naval establish ments at home being put, Sir C. WOOD rose and said,—lf the present vote had been proposed in the regular course of the estimates I should have thought it my duty to make some comments upon it. As this is, however, merely a vote on account, and as it will be necess iry that the question should again be brought under consideration when the new Parliament assembles, I shall abstain from adverting to it further on this occasion. I may, nevertheless, be permitted to take this opportunity to throw myself on the indulgence of the committee while I reply to some observations which fell from the first Lord of the Ad miralty in his statement in introducing the estimates a few weeks ago, and in which he impugned the conduct of the Board of Admiralty with which I was connected, in not building a sufficient number of larger line-of-battle ships, and in not-paying sufficient attention to the relative infe riority of our naval force as compared with that of the French. This statement when made was so contrary to any thing which I could be supposed to have anticipated that I was not, at the moment, provided with the necessary docu ments to enable me to controvert it. I have, however, anxiously waited for this opportunity to reply to it, and, as I hope, successfully, to vindicate the course pursued in this respect by the Government of which I was a member. The right hon. baronet said that the increase in the number of larger line-of-battle ships had not proceeded so rapidly as the requirements of the public service demanded, and, had he confined himself to that assertion, I should have no reason to complain. But the right hon. gentleman went on to say that he considered it to be his duty to ask the House of Commons to assent to a large additional sum for the build ing of ships, because he was bound to state that, when he succeeded to office, he had not found the navy of the coun try in a condition adequate to the defence of our coasts. The right hon. gentleman added that he did not mean to impute any blame in this respect to his predecessors, but I appeal to the committee to say whether a more serious charge than that which I have just mentioned co4ld have been made against us. My noble and gallant friend the mem ber for Sandwich, referring to the observations which fell from the right hon. baronet on that occasion, remarked that the first object which he seemed to have in view was to make an attack upon those who had preceded him in office ; the next, to vindicate his claim to the large sum of money whichhe asked the House of Commons to vote ; and I would now ask the right hon. gentleman whether he could have been so ignorant of the actual state of our navy as the ac cusation which he made against us would seem to imply ? That accusation was one of a most serious character; one, indeed, so serious as, if true, to render our conduct open to impeachment. I trust, however, I shall be able to demon strate to the committee that the charge is devoid of founda tion, and to vindicate the characters of the gallant officers who were associated with me at the Admiralty Board, as well as my own conduct, from the aspersion which has been thus cast upon them. The accusation which the right hon. baronet has made against us resolves itself in point of fact into three heads—that we neglected to ascertain the state of the French navy ; that we did not build an adequate number of ships of the line; and that we left the coasts of this country unprotected so far as its safety depended upon the existence of an efficient naval force. I shall now pro ceed to deal with those three charges. I went to the Ad miralty during the progress of the Russian war. The right hon. baronet who preceded me there had made great exer tions to strengthen our navy, and it became my duty to act still more vigorously in the same direction towards the close of the year 1855, and in the early part of 1856. The result of those efforts was the magnificent fleet which in the latter year assembled at Spithead, which WAS alluded to in terms of high praise by the hon. member for Norfolk, and which I have reason to know excited upon both sides of the Atlantic th© greatest admiration of the naval resources of England. (Hear.) It is of course perfectly just to say that our atten tion was then directed, to a great extent, to the building of vessels which were required for the purposes of the war in which we were engaged, but it is not correct to state that the building of line-of-battle ships was neglected during the years 18.54, 1855, and 1856. It may, under the circum stances be matter of interest to know what was actually ac complished in that direction during this period. I may inform the committee then that the number of steam ves sels which was added to our navy during the three years I have just mentioned was : —Line-of-battle ships, 14 ; frigates, 6 ; block ships, 5 ; mortar ships, 3 ; corvettes and sloops, 18 ; floating batteries, 8 ; gun vessels, 28 ; gun boats, 156 ; troop and store, 10 ; tenders, &c., 36 ; making altogether 284 steam vessels ; added to which there were 106 mortar vessels constructed. (Hear.) Such was the addition which was made to the steam force of our navy during the last three years of the war. In 1856 came peace, and it of course became necessary to reduce our naval force from the war establishment. No reduction, however, in the rate of building in our dockyards took place for nine months after, and they were not reduced fully to a peace expenditure until the Ist of April, 1857. Now, it became my duty in 1856 to consider the state of our navy with respect to the question of what our peace establishment should be, but I had not an opportunity of making a statement upon the subject until the month of May, 1857. I then entered into a very full explanation with re spect to it. I went at considerable length into a compari son between the state of our own and that of the French navy at the time. I adverted to the comparative strength of both at various periods of our history, and I referred to the additional cost of a steam as compared with a sailing fleet. I gave, in short, to the house all the information which I could procure on the subject, and I shall now, with the permission of the committee, quote one or two passages from the speech which I then made. I said on that occa sion : " The French are building large and more powerful line of-battle ships than ourselves. We ought not to be without the means of meeting such vessels." I then proceeded to state that the number of the French screw line-of-battle ships was 40, while our own was 42, and added that in this list I omitted our block ships, which, though very efficient for certain purposes, could not keep their place in a cruising or blokading squadron. I was fol lowed in the discussion which ensued by the noble lord the member for Sandwich. Did he think I had overrated the force of the English navy and underrated that of the French ? Far from it. M y noble friend said— " The First Lord has stated that we had 42 line-of-battle ships. The fact was that we had 51, for the nine screw block ships, which he had excluded from his enumeration of ships of the line, were amongst the most efficient of our line-of-battle ships." He then referred to the French naval force, and observed: "As reference had been made to the French navy, he might state that he held in his hand a list of their screw line of-battle ships with which he had been favoured by the French Minister. They amounted to 31, so that the number of our steam line-of-battle ships was nearly double that of our allies. He was of opinion, therefore, that the First Lord might with great propriety rest upon his oars, and take the opportunity of consulting members of the naval service before he proceeded to add to the number of these vessels. Instead of increasing our line of-battle ships he should appoint a committee to consider what descriptien of vessels ought to be built." I did not take the advide of my noble friend. I proceeded in building ships, and in doing so maintained a supply of men in our dockyards, the number of which was con demned by no less an authority than my right hon. friend the member for Carlisle. We did not red ace our dockyards to the peace establishment of the year preceding the war. We reduced it to the war establishment which my right hon. friend had sanctioned in 1854, and which was 1,200 men stronger than the peace establishment in ordinary times. What did the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) tell us ? He said 10,800 artificers was too great a number to keep up in time of peace. Now, in the first year after the Russian war we continued to build line of-battle ships, and kept up a larger establishment f or th a t purpose than the right hon. baronet thought was actually necessary. In the course of tkat year I authorised the hiring of additional men ' and the excess of wages was £17,000. The am oun t o f building done in 1857 was 50 per cent. greater than it was in the year preceding the outbreak of the Russian war. It must be recollected that the launching of ships depends mainly upon the amount of building done in the preceding year. In 1857 there were added to the Royal navy 15 steamships, of which only. two were line-of-battle ships; while in 1858 there were also 15 ships launched, in cluding eight line-of-battle ships. T admit that I did think in 1857 that building was proceeding as rapidly as could be desired ; and I went to Portsmouth myself, and I also sent Sir A. Milne, the Surveyor of the Navy, who reported to me upon the subject. Upon that report I prepared the estimates for 1858-9, containing a very considerable increase in the building force of the dockyards. As I have said, the amount of building depends upon the surplus number of men left disposable after providing for the fitting and repair of vessels. The average number of men employed in building in 1856 was 1,600, and we proposed an addition of 1,340 men, or about 83 per cent. It was not my fate to bring on those estimates, but those figures appeared upon the face of them as prepared by me. I had, too, then a statement of the comparative strength of the English and French navies, in respect of steam line-of-battle ships. At that time the French had 22 line-of -battle ships, and we had 2.5, in ad dition to nine block ships, making a total of 34 vessels fit to take part in any action in the Channel. I have in my hand a nominal list of the French navy and a nominal list of the English navy, made out before I quitted office, and there fore I speak without fear of contradiction. My gallant friend (Sir C. Napier) made a similar statement, only that he stated we had N vessels and the French 23, but I be lieve he included in both instances vessels which were being fitted with engines. I have quoted the words of the right hon baronet opposite in my own vindication, and I afrain refer to his own statements as proving my case. He had the task of introducing the estimates last year, and I at that time told him I thought he was taking an injudicious step, and one prejudicial to the public service by diminishing the estimates that I had - prepared' in respect to the outlay for the building of steam line-of-battle ships. The right hon. baronet upon that occasion said—" The right hon. member for Halifax had complained that we had not line-of-battle ships enough, and that we had on l y two more than the French. That was true, if only the line-of-battle ships actually afloat were meant, and the block ships were ex cluded. He admitted that those block ships should be superseded by line. of-battle ships as soon as possible, but four or five of those ships were is good condition, and it waa not fair to exclude them." The right hon, baronet also THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAt EVENING, APRIL 7, 1859. ' went on to say that if ships building and converting were included,- the superiority of England would be still more manifest, and the same obiervations applied to large frigates. Now, I submit I cannot have a more complete testimony of the condition in which I left the navy. I had no reason to believe that them were any additional exertions being made in the 'Trench yards, and, in fact, we know at that time there were none. Having quoted the right hon. baronet's words, I now adduce his acts as completely exculpating me from the charge which he has made. The efficiency of the navy in this respect depends upon three votes—the one we are now consideringfor works to be done in the dockyards, the one for stores, and the vote for improvements, &c. The right hon. gentleman reduced every one of those votes—not hastily, but after having very properly taken a month to consider the estimates, and then he came down here and spoke of the " prodigious expense" of the system that had prevailed, and of the "unprecedented force" in the dockyards. He stated that the reductions he proposed had been very carefully considered, and he was of opinion that the sums originally intended were not actually required for the efficiency of the public service. I had proposed to increase the number of men in the dockyards in order to7go on with the building of line-of-battle ships, but the right hon. gentleman reduced that vote, arguing against me upon our superiority over the French navy. We are aware of things now which were unknown to us at that time, and it now appears that before then the right hon. gentleman had received a submission from the Surveyor of the Navy that the building of line-of-battle ships was insufficient for the wants of the country. I should like, too, to know how the right hon. gentleman dealt with those two officers who formed a portion of his board as they did of mine. They, I know, concurred in my views, but how ho managed to convert them or to overcome their opposition I can't tell. The right hon. baronet must either have converted them to his views, or he has overruled the opinions of those- officers who had the best means of judging of what was right to be done. (Hear.) I have had no communication with those gentlemen upon the subject, but I draw the inference that the convictions of the right hon. gentleman must have been very strong when they enabled him to convert or overrule the opinions of such competent judges. Well, then, if he, after ample consideration and with the fullest information, thought it right to reduce my estimates because of our superiority over the French navy, I put it to any candid man in this house whether I am fairly liable to the imputation that has been cast upon me by the right hon. gentleman that I was ignorant or negligent of the state of the French navy. (Hear.) I think I have pretty well disposed of that charge, but there is just one other point to which I will advert, with respect to those block ships which the right hon. gentleman last year held in such high esteem, and which he now utterly condemns. Sir J. PAKINGTON.—As sea-going ships. Sir C. WOOD —I said in 1857 that I did not consider them as sea-going ships, but the right hon. gentleman con demned that view, and expressed a much highe r o pi n i on o f them then. He has since told us, " I have no hesitation in saying that the block ships are totally useless." Sir J. PAK INGTON.—That is not correct. It is not in my speech, which I have here. Sir C. WOOD.—AII I can say is, that I copied these words from the Times report. The right hon. baronet may, in correcting his speech for publication—and I see he has a copy in his hand—have struck out those words, but they were reported in the Times as I have quoted them. 1 would, however, remind the house that they must not sup pose that all the French ships are as fine sea-going ships as our new line-of-battle ships are. There is one of them I know, the Montebello, which has only 140-horse power, while the weakest of our block ships has 200-horse power. I say that for the defence of our coasts, at least, these block ships are good and efficient, and with regard to our force in line-of-battle ships we were stronger in that respect than France up to the time when I left office. I have a state ment of the force in each navy in January, 1858, and I found that at that time we had 25 screw line-of-battle ships and the French had 22. We had also nine block ships and 15 large screw frigates ; the French 11 screw frigates. Thus, including the block ships, we out numbered the French line-of-battle ships by 34 to 22, and including heavy frigates our superiority was 16 vessels. Taking . steam-vesssels of all other descriptions, large and small, in both countries, I find we had a total of 368, and the French had 144, leaving us a superiority of 224. Whether with that amount of force our coasts were in any danger, or whether any old woman had reason to fear being disturbed at night by a French invasion, is a point upon which the house can determine for themselves. The question that has been raised applied only to the build ing of line-of-battle ships, and I have confined my re marks solely to that point, and I think the house will agree that I was justified in making, and that I have succeeded in making, a complete exculpation from the charge that has been levelled at me and the Board of Admiralty with which I was connected, that we were ne gligent and that we left the coasts of this country in a de fenceless condition. (Hear, hear.) Whether the state of things which existed when I left office has been altered since, I am not able to say, but I do know this, that the right hon. baronet reduced the power of building ships in April, having previously received a submission from the Surveyor of the Navy recommending a different course. He received another submission in July, and he also then obtained information of what was doing in the French dockyards, which caused him such considerable alarm asks described to us a few weeks since. He then found that we had 29 ships-of-the-line, and the French had the same number, and that at the rate of progress then going on in each country the number would be before the end of this year 40 French to 36 English ships. lam not responsible for the rate of working in 1858, but if the right hon. gentle man thought the progress in launching and conversion was insufficient, may I ask why did he reduce my estimates ? (Hear, hear.) I have here a statement issuing from the Surveyor's department, dated Christmas, 1857, showing the state of shipbuilding at that time, and the probable time of their completion. It was of course impossible to state pre eisely what would have been the case, but we anticipated launching before the end of the financial year 1859 a larger number of ships than the right hon. baronet proposes now to launch, with the exception of the eight vessels about to be converted. Now, let the house remember that in July last the right hon. baronet became acquainted with the pro ceedings in the French dockyards which have-been alluded to. My belief is, that up to the winter of 1857-8 no great exertions were made in the French dockyards, but perhaps since then great exertions were made; nothing else can ac count for the line-of battle ships increasing from 22 in January to 29 in July. In that country they have the power of compelling workmen to leave !private yards to work in the Imperial dockyards, and ' I have seen lately that a very large supple mental credit is asked for on account of money expended in 1858 for the transformation of the navy. But surely it was the duty of the right hon. gentleman opposite, know ing these things in July, when Parliament was sitting, to have come down to this house and ask for a supplemental vote to enable him to carry on the work in our dockyards pari passu with the French. To be sure, he told us there were obvious reasons why he should not do so, and he spoke of the alarm that would have been created ; but the alarm would not have been greater in July last than it was in February. The Government were not pledged to their esti mates, because the right hon. baronet, in April, when moving them, said,— "If the present pressure continues at the close of the session,—if, in point of fact, we find that the late Govern ment was right, and that they did not exaggerate the re quirements of the country, I shall have no hesitation in coming down to the house before Parliament is prorogued." Surely, he knew in July all the facts which he knows now and he ought then to have done what he had said he should do if necessary. But what did he really do ? He took the men off job and task work and thus reduced the amount of the work done. I think the right hon. baronet assumed a very grave responpibility when he omitted to do as he said he would—come to this house for additional means to enable him to increase the building powers of the country. If he had done so he would not have lost, as he now has lost, nine valuable months. (Hear.) Even if he did not choose to do that he should have employed additional men, and it was his duty to have incurred the risk of exceeding the esti mates sanctioned by Parliament. If ho had done so, and had made a statement of his reasons in the following Feb ruary, the house would, I am sure, not only have sanc tioned his proceedings, but they would have applauded them. In my own case, in 1854, after Parliament was prorogued, and we had ordered the construction of a certain number of gun vessels, we founnd that the Russians wore building at a faster rate than ourselves, and I then consulted my noble friend then at the head of the Government, and he agreed with me as to the course I should take, which was to order the con struction of a large number of additional gunboats, which cost somewhere about half-a million sterling. It was my duty to do so, and if I had not done so I should have merited impeachment. I cannot but think the right hon. baronet has incurred grave responsibility by the loss of those nine months, for, although, of course, no one will object to the vote now asked for, yet money is not time, and the latter cannot be recovered. I will not longer trespass upon the patience of the committee, but I think that I have shown that I was not negligent or ignorant of the state of the French navy—that I did take means which the right hon. gentleman himself thought were proper to increase the power of our dockyards—that when I quitted the Admi ralty our shores were in an adequate state of defence—and that, if from any unforeseen circumstances there should be at the end of the year 1859 any inadequacy of line-of-battle ships to meet any force that France could bring against us, such inadequacy is hot fairly to be attributed to any neg lect on my part in the spring of 1858. I trust the com mittee will be of opinion that I have exculpated myself from the charge of having neglected the interests of the country, which has been imputed to me by the right hon. gentleman opposite. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. PAKINGTON—Of all the questions which come under the consideration of the house none are so painful and none are so distasteful to the house as allusions of a personal character, Ido not blame the right hon. baronet, if he thinks my speech bore hardly upon hint, for entering upon a defence; but I think ho has imputed to me charges which I never made; and, next, I think, he has failed in his endeavour to vindicate his own administration of the navy. The right hon. gentleman has extended his obser vations to such a length that, at this hour (a quarter past five), I fear I shall scarcely be able to reply to them so fully as I could desire. He complains of this passage in my statement on introducing these estimates : " I may state at - once that we ask for this great addition to the cost of ship-building, because I am bound to say that when I succeeded to office I did not find the navy of this country in a proper and adequate state for the defence of our coasts and the protection of our commerce." These phrases were intended to cover all :the various-func tions which the navy of England has to perform—(hear)-- and, taking that free and egended view of them, I beg to say I adhere literally to that statement. (Hear, hear.) I said— "l cheerfully do justice to former Governments, and espe cially to that which immediately preceded us, to which, in regard to many points, great credit is due; and while they left many things still to be done, it is but fair to say that there were strong and obvious reasons connected with the Russian war why certain reforms should not then have been adopted." Surely there was no want of courtesy in that. I added— .. " It will be seen that during the time that right hon. gentleman was at the board of Admiralty considerable addi tions of the smaller vessels were made, such as corvettes, sloops, and, above all, gunboats. I am not sure whether the addition of gunboats had not commenced in the time of the right lion. baronet the member for Carlisle; but our present gunboats were chiefly added by the right hon. baronet the member for Halifax, and -I do not think a more valuable addition has ever been made to the navy than those gun. boats." Was that an attack on the right. hon. gentleman ? I will trouble the house with one more extract. I said,— " Those additions wore chiefly made in 1856 ; they had reference to the war then going on with Russia; and th e right hon. gentleman very naturally added vessels of a class suited to the emergency of the moment; but while a consi derable force of those gunboats and sloops were added to the navy, the line-of-battle ships and frigates did not increase in the ratio which the interests of the public service de manded. On the contrary, the result of the war was actu- ally to check the progress which ought to have been made in augmenting the number of line-of-battle ships." NOW, Sir, I ask, after reading those extracts—and there are no others bearing on the point in question—is the right hon. gentleman justified in saying that I brought those three charges against him ? (Hear, - hear.) If I erred at all, it was surely on the side of courtesy, and I am prepared to'say that I do think the right hon. gentleman, partly from the causes to which I have adverted and partly from other causes, did not take those steps which were incumbent on him, in the position he occupied, with the view to strengthen OUT navy, and to make up the deficiency in our line-of battle ships which had resulted from the introduction of steam. In justification of that statement I would refer to a speech of the right hon. gentleman made in May, 1857, on bringing forward the new navy estimates. He said on that occasion,— " Nevertheless, it would be unwise not to continue build ing a certain number of ships of a large size. We must look to what other nations are doing in this respect. It is plain that no great naval engagement could be maintained in the middle of the Atlantic between line-of-battle ships and gunboats. The French are building large and more powerful line-of-battle ships than ourselves ; the United States also are building ships and frigates larger than any we have." Then he added a little on,— " He had never said, as had been supposed, that we must bring the numerical proportion of our ships to those of the French up to what it had been during the last war. All he said was, that when our line-of-battle ships only exceeded the French by two that was not the proportion that our fleet should bear." Here I find in May, 1857, a distinct acknowledgment on the part of the right hon. gentleman that our line-of-battle ships were not what they ought to be when compared with the French force in that respect. Why, I ask, did he not take steps to redress that inferiority, and to restore the strength of the navy to what it ought to be ? (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman says he did. I join issue with him, and say he did not. The statement I have just quoted was made in 1847 by the right hon. gentleman on moving the estimates ; but in that year he took no steps whatever to correct the deficiency the existence of which he had avowed. He did nothing to remedy it, and we have had it from his own lips that in the financial year 1857-8 two line of-battle ships were launched, which is one less than the maintaining rate of three per annum. (Hear, hear.) So much for the year 1857. I come now to the year 1858, when I succeeded to office. What had the right hon. gen tleman done then ? I understood him to say that eight line-of-battle-ships were launched in 1858. Sir C. WOOD—What I said was that eight line-of-battle ships were added to the navy in 1858, as appears by a return which I hold in my hand. Sir J. PAKINGTON (resuming)—l hold in my hand a return from which it appears that, instead of eight, the number is only four. (A laugh.) Sir C. WOOD—Here is a return, signed by Sir Baldwin Walker, surveyor of the navy, showing that of steamvessels added to the navy in 1858 there were eight ships of the line —namely, four built and four converted. (A laugh.) That is the statement contained in paper 65 of the present ses sion, for which I moved on the 16th of February. Sir J. PAKINGTON (continuing)—Well, I hold in my hand a printed return, showing that there were only four added —(a laugh)—viz., the Donegal, the Windsor Castle; the Hero, and the Edgar. I can only reconcile the differ ence by assuming that there were four built and four con verted, But that does not affect the argument I was pur suing, which is, that the right hon. gentleman, having ac knowledged that he was then aware of the deficiency, did not take the necessary s t e p s t o correc t it . The mode in which I prove this is by referring to the course taken by the right hon. gentleman on the estimates of last year. What was that course ? The right hon. gentleman added £lOO,OOO to the estimates of the preceding year for shipbuilding. Well, we all know that £lOO,OOO, even if that sum had been available for the purpose, would do very little towards re dressing the deficiencies in the navy, having regard to what ought to be its proper strength. But the proposal of the right hon. gentleman to add £lOO,OOO was not really an addition to that amount, for he had taken £30,000 too little in the previous year, 1857, so that the actual addition to the estimates of last year was only £7o,ooo—(hear, hear)—and I leave it to the house to determine whether an addition of £70,000 to our naval estimates wassufficient to bring up our force to the position in which it ought to be, considering the state in which it was at that moment. (Hear, hear.) But I have a still more serious question to ask the right hon. gentleman. I find in his speech of 1857 a statement to which he has adverted to-day, but without giving the figures, showing the comparative strength of the English and French navies. That statement was made on the 18th of May, 1857. The right hon. gentleman stated the comparative naval force of England and France in 1793, 1817, 1840, and 1857. He was then speaking of ships-of-the-line. His statement was that on that day, the 18th of May, 1857, the English screw line-of-battle ships were 42, and the French screw line-of battle ships 40. "In this," the right hon. gentlemen said, "I omit our blockships, which, though very efficient for certain purposes, could not keep their pl aces m a cruising or blockading squadron." I wish to ask the right hon. gentleman where those 42 line-of-battle ships are ? (Hear.) He stated on the 18th of May, 1857, that we had 42 screw line-of-battle ships, exclusive of blockships. In January, 1858, we had only 25 screw line-of-battle ships. (Hear.) Sir C. WOOD—that statement the right hon. gentleman will find includes the screw line-of-battle ships which were building and converting, as well as those which were afloat. Of those there were 42 English and 40 French. Sir J. PAKINGTON (resuming)—Now that the right hon. gentleman has made that explanation I must say I think he was not dealing candidly with the house, seeing that in his statement on the 18th of May, 1857, he was in cluding ships which at this moment are not launched. (Hear.) I should have had no objection to the right hon. gentleman making that statement if he had plainly told the house what he actually meant ; but he did no such thing. I told the house the other night how many ships we were building and converting, and what the state of those ships was ; but the right hon. gentleman was not so explicit on the 18th of May, 1857, for he merely said we had then 42 screw ships of the line, and the French 40. I think every man who heard that statement of the right hon. gentleman, or read it, would be led to the belief that that was the effective force at that moment, and nobody could ever thoughscc u oo u n p u n p o t r e cu t oob h u lty a that intentionally onlystating the supposeg h t t h e h , o winn n ue . i srm g le e e bea n effd t r n l e co m gt a u p s r e a c a t n i c d a l t l h y e , w c hi lud ch ing, th in e reality, the ship s w hi c h now, two years after, are still on the stocks and y e t unlaunched. (Hear, hear.) , I think the house and th e country have a right to complain of the right t hon. gentlem an ' s s t atement as wanting in candour and inge nuousness, If the force was then in the state which he has now explained, it was his duty as First Lord of the Admi ralty to have said so frankly to the house. (Hear, hear.) I confess I cannot understand, if that was his meaning, how he could have been so wanting in ingenuousness as not to tell the house that, instead of having 42 ships afloat, we had on his own showing I know not how many ; for, in the fol lowing month of January we had only 25 effective line-of battle ships. (Hear.) When I succeeded to office I found a fleet with only 25 or 26 line-of-battle ships, and that the right hon. gentleman had proposed an addition of £lOO,OOO to increase the force. What had he done to correct that state of things ? Next to nothing. He did add £70,000 to the estimates when we had only 25 line-of-battle ships. I say the right hon. gentleman neglected his duty. To come down to this house, as the Naval Minister, and propose an increase of only £70,000 to the estimates, at a time when we had only 25 line-of-battle ships, I say was to fall greatly short of the duty which he owed to his country. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman says that ono of my charges was that he did not know the state of the French navy at that time. I did not make that charge. I said, from the inforination I received when I came to the Admi ralty, I did not believe they were apprised of the state of affairs in France with that accuracy with which they ought to have been informed. Again, the right hon. gentleman says I overruled the members of the Board. I beg leave to N l v e e c u n mt e v da e ot r twe l i : i a had. The dockyard rightestimates. tell him I did no such thing. W e h a d no diffetence at that h i I? a p p i p s u y np tosay s o n t h h hon d ge h n a o n t w l d e m l m an a u m eh eo labour I took off £20,000. I fi rs t proposed to take off £lOO,OOO. Sir Baldwin' Walker remonstrated, and said he wished I would add £ 5 0,000. I did so. I then dis covered the err or a b out the £30,000 to which I adverted, and I added that sum; so that when I made m statement to the house i n A pr i l the real difference b Y etween the right hon. gentleman's estimates and mine was only £20,000. But I would not have made that difference, or indeed any dif ference, if I had known then what I know now of the in efficient state in which the navy was left by the right hon. gentleman. He talks of my speech of the 12th of April. How long had I then been in office ? Why, not a month. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman says, that after full deliberation I did so and so. Why the truth is, I had not then had a full o p portun i ty of ascertaining the state of the English, much less that of the French navy. (Hear.) I only said then that I was unwilling to adopt large estimates without first satisfying myself of their necessity; but, un doubtelly, if I found that necessity I would ask for an increased vote. The right hon. gentleman says I did so in spite of the remonstrances of Sir Baldwin Walker. No such thing. The right hon. gentleman has misunderstood what I said on a former evening. I corrected the estimate after I took office, previously to receiving, so far as I re member, that " submission ' from Sir Baldwin Walker which came into the Admiralty either at the extreme end of March or the beginning of April. [Sir C. Woon. —March.] But why was it that we received that " submission ?" If the right hon. gentleman had done his duty to the Board of Admiralty, if ho had 'put the navy of England on the footing on which it ought to be, or even proposed to put it on the footing on which it ought to be, why was it, I ask, that the Surveyor of the Navy felt obliged to come to me, immediately on my taking office, and make a remonstrance as to the defective state of the navy, and implore that I would forth with proceed to add to the number of line-of-battle ships ? (Cheers.) Why, the very fact of that " submission" having been made is the most conclusive evidence of that neglect of the navy of this country which the right hon. gentleman has denied. If he had put the navy on an effec tive footing, Sir Baldwin Walker would have had no occa sion to come to the Admiralty with such a " submisiion" on our immediately taking office. The remonstrance was made in April, and I immediately added £50,000 t what I had proposed. In the following month of May there was another " submission" from Sir B. Walker ; and what did we do then? 'Why, we immediately put our whole dock yard force on task and job work, and it was owing to the exertions we then made th a t we were enabled to have a Channel Fleet of six line-of-battle ships in August. (Hear, hear.) The right hon gentleman says it was my duty to have come down to the house in July and ask for an in creased estimate. But, sir, it was only at the ex treme end of July, just towards the close of the session, thaf we discovered that which the right hon. gentleman ought before to have discovered—namelYt the rapid strides which the French navy was making. (Hear, hear.) Why did not the right hon. gentleman find that out ? Why was it reserved for us in the month of July, in consequence of inquiries prosecuted during the summer ? We then learnt the state of the French navy and the rapid advance which it was making; but when those discoveries were, made Parliament was on the point of breaking up, and we could not then have come before the house with a supplemental estimate without taking a course which was unusual, and unless we had been on the ev e o f war we should not have been justified in creating the alarm which such a step would have produced in the country. (Hear, hear.) . What did we do ? Did we neglect the occasion ? No. We immediately took the most active and effective steps to adapt our position to it ; we proceeded to convert our line-of-battle ships, which are now practically added to our navy, and so endeavoured to restore to it that efficiency which 'we found did not exist when I came to the Admiralty. (Hear.) And now that we have come to a new session of a rliament, and have had to frame our own estimates, we have not, like the right hon. gentleman, made a proposal to take a vote of X7O l OOO, when We had only 25 effective of-battle ships; we have taken a very diff eren t line, and I suspect that is the real cause of the speech we have heard to-day from the right hon. gentleman, and of the sensitive ness he has shown w ith regar d to charges which were never made. Instead of taking a vote for £70,000, we. have pro posed to take one for £1,000,000, which will enable us to add 26 powerful men-of-war to the navy, and to redress, so far as it is possible to redress, that 13ositivd and relative de ficiency in our naval force which the late Government had allowed to exist. (Cheers.) Sir, under the pressure of time (it was now nearly a quarter to 6 o'clock) I have had to advert to the topics embraced in the right hon. gentle man's speech, but I am not aware that I have omitted to notice any of his observations. I think I have satisfied the house. that the right hon. gentleman had no reason to complain, and that if I erred at all it was on the side of courtesy. I hope, too, I have satisfied the house that, con sidering the state of things which I found on succeeding to office at the Admiralty, it was impossible, under the cir cumstances, and with every desire to discharge our duty, to do more than take the steps we have done, with the view to bring the navy to a pitch of efficiency commensurate with the requirements of the times in which we live. (Cheers.) Sir C. NAPIER said he did not see how the house could reconcile the statements just made by two First Lords of the Admiralty. He could not do so, and it was his opinion that there was blame on both sides. (Laughter.) The gallant admiral continued his observations up to a quarter to 6, when a cry of time arose, at which the gallant admiral took up hie ' hat and. said, "I'll reserve the rest till to-morrow." The debate was then adjourned. MARKETS (IRELAND) BILL. The order for the committal of this bill was read and dis charged. REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS (IRELAND) BILL. The order for the second reading of this bill was dis charged. REGISTRATION OF COUNTY VOTERS (SCOT- LAND) BILL. The order for the second reading of this bill was dis charged. COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL. On the motion of Mr. DRUMMOND this bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. WESTMINSTER NEW BRIDGE BILL. Lord J. MANNERS brought in a bill to empower her Majesty's Commissioners of Works to acquire an additional space for the western approach to Westminster new bridge. The bill was read a first time. NAVAL SUPPLEMENTAL FUND. Mr. CORRY obtained leave to bring in a bill to continue the act for the regulation of annuities and premiums of the Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned. COUNTRY MARKETS. NEWARK-APRIL 6. A tolerable supply of wheat, but therewas a dull feeling in the trade, and all good qualities realised the rates of last week. There was not much doing in oats, barley, and beans, and prices were without change. White wheat, new, 44s to 48s Barley, grinding.. 28s to 30s Red do. 3Bs to 42s Oats, old, .. - 24g to 30s Old white 443 to 48s New do 26s to 309 Red do. 38s to 42s Beans.. 40s to 48s Barley, malting.... 36s to 44s Peas ....—s to ►—s MARKET HARBOROUGH—APRIL 5. There was a small show of wheat yesterday, which sold at the prices of last week—from 38s to 41s , barley firm, at 36s to 40s. per qr. ; oats, 24s to 30s per 24 stone ; beans, - 40s to 48s per 38 stone. MELTON MOWBRAY —APRIL 5. At the market to-day the supply of wheat was limited ; there was less barley offering, late prices being obtained for both malting and distilling sorts. In oats, beans, or peas little doing. . Wheat ..37s to 40s Oats.... 3os to 35s White do .38s to 43s Beans 40s to'44s Barley .36s to 42s Ditto, old ........ 448 to 48s NEWCASTLE—A.ISmL 5. The show of wheat is not large, and the trade qiiieti and prices can only be quoted about equal to last week. Fine barley at full rates. The demand is limited for beans, oats; and other articles, without alteration in values. HULL—APRIL 5. At this corn market to-day there was a small supply of wheat, which was in good condition, with a slow inquiry at about the rates of last week. Barley was in small supply, at late rates. Beans and peas dull and rather easier. Oats quiet, without change in value. Wheat.... Old white. ...per qr .. 408 04 to 48s Od Old red New white .. ~ New red .... ~ Dantzic, Konb , &c. old white 508 Od to 538 Od Dutch, Belgian, and French 4ss 04 to 468 Od Baltic and Hamburg, red 43s Od to 458 Od St. Petersburg and Riga, old 386 Od to 39s 04 Barley.... English malting 33s Od to 37s Od Grinding Sul and Oderbruck Holstein and Danish 29s Od to 315.0 d Grinding 26s Od to 28s Od Oats English, old Archangel and Riga, per st Os lld to llid Friesland and Dutch Osllid to is Od Swedish and Danish Oslld to Oslltd Beans ....English, old, per qr. 448 Od to 46s Od New pigeon 4OB Od to 42s Od New tick. 39s Od to 40s Od Egyptian 3ss Od to 36s Od Peas Foreign breakers Grinding Tares ....Winter Bss Od to 90s Od Indian Corn Linseed, feeding........... : crushing . .............. ... Linseed cakes ( Hull) .... . ....... ..Z9 50t0£9 10 0 Foreign - 810 oto 8 15. 0 Rape cakes 6lO oto 615 0 Bones DUBLIN-APRIL 6. We had a dull and heavy market at our corn exchange to-day, without any alteration in the general currencies of Friday last. Indian corn only saleable in the merest re tail. a. d. s. d. Wheat, white 23 0 to 26 0 Do., red 2l 6 to 23 6 Do., now Barley Oats Do., black lO 6to 11 0 [ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills and Ointment.— Female Complaints.—On the mothers of England devolve much and serious responsibility in securing to their daughters robust health, too frequently, alas, thought les sl y sacrificed by culpable bashfulne ss a t a particular period of life, when all-important changes take place in the female constitution, and upon th e p ro p er managemen t o f which hangs futu re happiness or misery. Neglect in assisting nature has consigned thousands to despondency, disease, and premature death. Holloway's Pills, especially if aided by the ointment, have the happiest effects in establishing these functions, upon the due performance of which our social position depends, and our race saved from degenera tion. Mothers and daughters may safely use these power ful deobstruent remedies without feeing the faculty. [ADVERTISEMENT.] SI GHT AND HEARING.— SPEC , * TAcLES.—POWERPITL TEL ESCOPES.--OPER.A i RACE, AND PERSPECTIVE GLASSES. Messrs. S. and B. Solomon, opticians, 39, Alberrnarle-Street, Piccadilly. Observe— opposite the York Hotel, W.—Opere, Race-course, Field, and gen era l Out-door Day and Night Perspective Glasses, very small, for the waistcoat pocket, each containing 12 and 18 lenses, constructed of German glass. Will show dis tinctly a person to know them at two-and-a-half and three miles, and an object from eight to ten miles distant. Her Majesty's Coast Guards are making use of them as day and night glasses in preference to all others ; they are also pre ferred for deer -stalking by sportsmen, gentlemen, and gamekeepers. Telescopes 31 inches long, by which a per• son may be clearly seen and known at 31 miles' and an object at 12 to 14 miles' distance; and with an extra astro nomical eye-piece, Jupiter's moons, Saturn's rings, and the double stars are distinctly seen. All the above can be had of larger and all sizes, with increasing powers, and are secured by her Majesty's Royal Letters Patent. The Royal Exhibition, 18.51. A valuable, newly'. nvented, very small, powerful Waistcoat-pocket Glass, the size of a walnut, by which a person can be seen and known one and a half mile distant. They answer every purpose on the Race-c ourse an d at the Opera houses. Country scenery and ships are clearly seen at four to six miles. They are invaluable for shooting, deer-stalking, yachting, to sportsmen, gentlemen, game keepers, and tourists. Price 30s.—Sp ectacle Lenses of the greatest transparent power. The great advantage derived from this invention is, that vision becoming impaired is preserved and strengthened, and very need persons are enabled to employ their sight at the most mmute occupation —can see with those lenses of a much less magnifying power, and they do not require the frequent changes to the dangerous effects of further powerful assistance. Personal stating the distance from the eyes they can be suited at the most remote part of the world by send ing one of the glasses out of their spectacles in a letter, and can read small print with it, and those who have not made use of spectacles by statingtheirage. Deafness.—New Discovery.—The Organic Vibrator, an extraordinarily powerful small newly-invented instrument for Deafness, entirely different from all others, surpasses anything of the kind that has been, or probably ever can be, produced. Being of the same colour as the skin, is not perceptible. It enables deaf persons to hear distinctly at church and at public assemblies; the unplea sant sensation of singing noises in the ears is entirely re moved, and it affords all the assistance that possibly could be desired.-39, Albemarle-street. Piccadilly. Observe.—. opposite the York Hotel, W. BIRTHS. ASHRY.—On the 6th inst., at C roydon, the wife of James Ashby, of a so n. MEnEWLT I LER.n the sth i nst., at Bowden-hill, Wilts, Mrs. H. A. Merewether, of a daughter. UPCHEIL.—On the 4th inst., at Sheringham Hall, Norfolk, the wife of H. R. Upcher, Esq., of a son. W of Colonel HITE.—On the sth in s t., at 16, Cadogan-place, the wife Henry Dalrymple White, C. 8., of a daughter. MARRIAGES BAnnwonm—Surrn.—On the sth inst., at St. James's Piccadilly, J. C. Barkworth, Esq., of the Inner Tele, barrister•at-law, an d of the London Stock Exchang mp e, to Ellen, Sarah, fourth surviving daughter of Chas. Smith, Esq., of Tottenham, Middlesex. JOSEPH — PHILLIPS. —On the 6th inst., Mr. Edw. Joseph, of 81, Aldersgate-street, to Kate, eldest daughter of P. S. Phillips, Esq., of 36, Finsbury-circus. DEATHS. ALBERT.--On the 2d inst., at Godden-green, near Seven oaks, Kent, Henry, second son of Lieut. and Adjutant Albert, W.K.Y.C., aged 18. BUSIINELL.—On the Ist inst., Jane, the wife of Augustus B. Bushnell, of 17, Wilton-street, Grosvenor-place. DORIA.—On the Ist inst., at Manton, Rutland, Captain A. Doria, late H.E.1.C.5., aged 42. HARDY . —On the 3d inst., at B a th , John Peter Hardy, ~ aged 70. HILL —On the 4th inst., Mr. john Hill, of 22, Fiah-street hill, aged 78. ROBESON.—On the 4th inst., at Southsea, Ann, wife of Lient.-Colonel Robeson. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at .rhe Bun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, 111 the county et Middlesex, Thursday, App 7, 1859. s. d s,d. Do., new 11 6 to 13 0 Bere lO 0 to 12 0 Rapeseed Oatmeal l3 0 to 14 6 Bakers' flour Indian corn