The Sun. — London, England, 1861-04-12 00:00:00

he had described. Surely they ought not to incur that fur ther expenditure until they had had a thorough change in the system, and knew that they would get value for their money. Even it were not desirable to have these vessels built in private yards, their construction ought to be delayed until some security was taken that they would be built at as low a price as it could be done elsewhere. (Hear, hear.) If this country went on increasing its expenditure at the present rate France must do the same, and there would be ne end to their rivalry in ruinous armaments. Let the house consider the foolish tariff which the States of North America had lately passed, and which, although it would injure its authors more than it injured us, would yet be a blow to our own monufacturing interest. Let them consider, also, the heavy load of taxation to which our people were subjected, and remember that many operatives in the man ufacturing districts were already out of employment. He had seen a telegraph from Manchester, dated Monday last, which stated that great excitement prevailed among the workpeople at Staleybridge and elsewhere, owing to a threatened reduction of wages, and that disturbances of the peace had taken place. Telegraphs such as that were as the handwriting on the wall, from which it would be. wise to take warning. He called upon the house, then, to make such substantial reductions in the public expenditure as they could easily make without impairing the efficiency of the service; and he felt confident that they would net neglect the true interests of the people. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman concluded by moving his resolution. Sir S. M. PETO, in seconding the motion, called atten tion to the circumstances connected with the building of the iron war steamers Nemesis, Guadeloupe, Lizard and Harpy, These vessels had been tried on distant service and in actual warfare, and the reports of their commanders proved that when struck with shot their plates were seldom penetra ted, and that even when so penetrated the damage done admitted of easy repair. Having referred to the reports of Captains Hall and Charlewood, the commanders of two of the above-named ships, in support of his statement, the hon. member observed that achange of ministry having t a k e n place in 1846, Sir Howard Douglas was requested by the Government to make a report on the value and utility of iron-built vessels. That distinguished officer gave an opinion that they were utterly unfit for war purposes, and that if pierced with shot, as they easily could be if struck with a projectile fired with velocity, the aperture could not be plugged from the inside. That report induced Sir It. Peel to order that iron vessels should not be employed for =war Purposes. He (Sir M. Peto) did not blame Sir R. Peel for selecting Sir H. Douglas, nor did he blame Sir H.Doug las for giving that opinion, but he was induced to remark that the opinion of any man, however talented he might be supposed to be, who had been educated in a particular school, was not likely to be characterised by those enlarged views and practical knowledge which would make his opinion valuable. It might have been supposed that the reports of Captain Charlwood and other officers would have had weight with the Admiralty, and that they would not have allowed the opinion of one officer to outweigh the experience of many. But the Admiralty wished to have the opinion of Sir H. Douglas supported by experiment, and accordingly in 1841 a small iron steamer of 200 tons, of inferior build, was seleoted. That vessel was surveyed and was reported to be in a very bad state, the iron plates of which she was built not exceeding the thickness of a half-crown. Against this vessel every species of gun was employed, andasraight naturally be expected, she was blown to pieces. The House of Commons was then told that the experiment proved that it would be impossible to use iron ships with safety. In 1350 the Admiralty determined that not only vessels of war but also Post-office packets, must be built of wood, and it was not until the Peninsular and Oriental, the Cunard, and other great steamship companieswarmly remonstrated, that the Admiralty discovered how much their practice was at variance with commercial practice, and then they relaxed their rulein favour of Post-office packets, and subsequently relaxed it also in respect of the navy. It was likely that it would be said wooden ships would still be needed. Possibly so, but the hon. member for Sunder land had shown that we had more wooden ships than all the rest of the world besides. The only Power against whom we were arming—judging from the debates in that house and statements from the Treasury bench—was France, who had ceased to build wooden ships. Why, then, should we not stay our hands ? He might ask, of what use would be wooden ships against the new class of projectiles that were being adapted for warfare ? Sir H. Douglas him self gave an answer to that question in his account of the last war, in which he stated that the Albion received se veral shells near the water-line, was once or twice on fire, and it was necessary to tow her out of action. The Are thusa was several times on fire. The Sanspareil suffered in men and spars, as did also the London and the Queen. At Sinope the whole Turkish squadron was burnt by shells with time fuses. Sir H. Douglas also stated that an iron vessel built with 5-Bth plates was perfectly shell proof. If that were so, how great was the advantage of shell proof iron ships over wooden vessels, which were liable to such accidents as those he had mentioned I He wished to refer to another point connected with the question. In 1856 or 1857 Franco discontinued the building of wooden ships, because in the action of Kinburn it was found that shot and shell from the forts did not pene trate the sides of the iron vessels. That fact was known to our officers, and was communicated to the Admiralty; but, although France immediately learned a lesson of wisdom, our Admiralty. was very slow to receive it, for since then we have built and converted 70 ships, of 150,000 tons, mount ing 3,800 guns, with 33,000 horse-power. How could such ships be sent to face the improved guns of the present day with any chance of success ? He remembered that on a previous evening, when the hon. member for Sunderland made some observations on what France was doing, and quoted a statement of the Minister of Marine, which state ment was received with doubts by some members, and even by some sitting on the Treasury bench, he (Sir M. Peto) had asked a personal friend, an engineer of high standing, to visit all the ports of France, and to report upon what was doing. He did so, and reported that the Minister of Marine had rather overstated the amount of work that was going on. At Toulon, Rochefort, and Tither ports there was not the least sign of activity, the only vessels preparing being the six which were ordered in 1858, and even they were not so far advanced as had been stated, the Normandie not having a single plate upon her sides. Now, what was the English Admiralty about? It had ordered the construction of three classes of iron ships. First, two vessels were ordered by the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich, the Warrior and the Black Prince. In the opinion of practical men these two vessels ordered by the late Admiralty were the only iron ships worthy of the name, or that would be of any real use to the country. They were large vessels, carrying 36 guns, with stowage for 1,200 tons of fuel, and a speed of 14 knots per hour. The second class of vessels were those ordered by the present Admiralty, the Resistance and Defence. They were of 3,000 tons burden, and carried 16 guns ; but they were slow, they were not expected to make more than 10 or 11 knots an hour. In the third class were two new vessels, the Valiant and the Achilles; the weight of their hulls was 4,000 tons, and the only space for the stowage of fuel, or the carrying power, was the difference between the nominal registered tonnage and the real weight of the hulls. They would not steam more than eight or nine knots an , hour, or carry more than three days' fuel. (Hear.) Of these six vessels two would carry 13 days' fuel, and two only from three to five days' consumption. If our Admiralty were bound to make an alteration in the plans of another it ought to give some reason for that alteration ; and he could not understand why the present Admiralty had departed from the model laid down by the last. The speed of the French iron steamers was from 10 to 13 knots an hour. Should not the English vessels be equal in speed and carry ing power to the ships it was believed they were intended to oppose? But there were many disadvantages in four of the ships he had named, independently of their want of stowage and rate of speed. What was required was, a dis tinct class of vessels, acting together ; but, with only two ships equal to the French vessels in point of speed, in the event of an action, might not the f'ur be left behind alto gether and the two fastest ships find themselves opposed to a much superior force ? But he wished to direct attention to what might be done with their wooden vessels. The French had not built a single ship wholly of iron. What were called iron ships were only wooden frigates cased with iron. (Lord C. Paget—One French frigate is built of iron.) If the Admiralty acceded to this motion he believed it would be possible to cut down the larger wooden ships then in course of construction into a smaller and useful class of vessels. The cost of the Government manufactory of engines for steamships was put down in the estimates at £300,000 a-year. The engines for iron steamers amid cost no more than those for wooden vessels ; and, except actual war, there was nothing in the ordinary wear and tear to make continual repairs of iron hulls necessary. This made a great differe nee in the cost of repairs of iron vessels com pared with those of wood. If an iron fleet were laid up and the machinery of the ships kept in order by putting it in motion once or twice a month, that fleet would always he ready for service without the extensive repairs that were often unexpectedly found necessary in wooden S hips. In building and converting wooden ships Orly £ 21,000,000 had been expended in the last "Olt years. He thought he had made out a case worthy of t he attention of the house ; the difference of the cost of intioanhltalliuing wooden and iron fleet was worth considera ,Governmuttet doubted the policy of building iron ships in the to incur the d ockyards ; if they were an experiment only, in their cons truction of the machinery and plant required than an experim, t u ir was unwise ; and if they were more There ,: wa s a step no man of business would recommend. from private builders as at uo difficulty in obtaining iron hulls mi ens the Government dida ftnleota k price. At the present mo comideration of the su bj ect had "' b ow what they cost. The forced th on the } English h G o vernment by that of Franc ell not by ,French iron vessels , but their effici ency, aennduhme er thouf e .. t at e.fticieney alone was the test of value. (near.) The court • 'trod to pay I,r efficiency. t r y. was prep ared p w ur ar . a .sudden necessity was f ound for gunboats; the Admiralty was obliged to have recourse to a for eign chas e two gunboats, and they were of iron. By their m eans they were enabled to burn th e the Russian stores atß—ere:as. Those gunboats were bought f rom P russi an Governs punt, so that in a difficulty the English Admiralty w as driven to purchase vessels of a Power like Prussia, that had scarcely any navy. But had the Admiralty learned anything from this ? On the contrary. The course which The hulls of all our iron ought to be pursued was plain. ships should be built in the Thames, in the Mersey, and in the Clyde. The engines should be constructed by firms of standing, and our dockyards should be kept simply for repairs, and for nothing else. There would then be no diffi culty in ascertaining in future what our expenditure was, and the expenditure would be immeasurably less than it was now. With regard to troop- ships, there was no necessity for any outlay on that account, but France was in a diffe rent position, for she could not fall back on a large com mercial navy. (Hear.) In the report of the Commis sioners, Sir B. Walker, who gave his evidence with the utmost straightforwardness and candour, declared that he was placed in a position where he could not with credit to himself undertake the responsibility which devolved upon him. Yet when Sir Baldwin was appointed the Admiralty were perfectly well aware he knew nothing about the con. struction of vessels, except as being a good sailor. The same thing occurred over again in the appointment of Admiral Robinson. Now, in the selection of an architect or an engi neer the first requisite was that he should have a practical knowledge of his profession; and the results which had made themselves felt in building our navy could not be wondered at when the incapacity of those who ruled over this department was so complete. (Hear.) The improve ments which science and skill were every day effecting in the construction of ships ought to be to England a source of increased power, and not of weakness. (Hear, hear.) Ne country had advantages comparable with those enjoyed by England. Here were unlimited supplies of iron and coal; here were practical engineers equal to any in the world ; skilled labour was to be had in abundance, and capital to render all these advantages available. Remembering this he could not understand the statement made by Sir B. Walker to the Commissioners, that when the Admiralty invited tenders for the construction of iron frigates certain contrac tors offered the clerks large sums of money to furnish them with the necessary plans and calculations. Surely in a coun try which had taught the world, which was the birthplace of the steam engine and the parent of the locomotive, there was plenty of practical skill to which the Admiralty might have recourse. It seemed to him that nothing would be easier than for the Admiralty to say to six or seven of our leading firms, " Here are certain conditions, with which you must comply, with regard to speed, armament, stowage of coals, and aceommodation for men; and you shall supply us with a vessel which, unless it fulfils all these conditions, we won't take; but If IL dues fulfil them we will pay you for ; and, moreover, the firm which produces the most economical and most efficient ship shall, over and above the stipulated sum, receive a large reward and orders for the future." (Hear, hear.) Such an invitation would bring out shipbuilding talent in plenty. Did any body suppose that the talent was concentrated only at the Admiralty ? (A laugh.) The ships of the Cunard line, and of the Peninsular and Oriental and the Royal Mail Steam Packet Companies, showed that private yards could turn out splendid specimens of naval architecture. (Near, hear.) All that was required was that this talent should be made available for the service of the country. (Hear, hear.) At the same time, in speaking of Admiralty mismanagement, he wished it to be understood that in his opinion the mis management was the fault of the system rather than of in dividuals. lie had been sorry to hear the remarks made upon the Secretary to the Admiralty, because his belief was that no one could have done more than the noble lord had done in the position which he occupied, and the fact that he had done so little afforded the strongest possible proof of the defects of the system. (Hear, hear.) The Admiralty, how ever, must now act, and act vigorously. The country ex pected this of them, and had made up its mind, on evidence quite irresistible, that the House of Commons would be wanting in courage if it did not, without finding fault with individuals, declare the existing system ought to be at once reformed. (Hear, hear.) The house would be justified in saying to the Admiralty,—" We will intrust to you no more 'honey than is absolutely necessary for the honour and safety of the country. We will refuse our assent to all expenditure which has its origin in incapacity and mismanagement, and we will not perpetuate a system which is so ill• conceived, and which at every point works so prejudicially to the public in•. terests." (Hear, hear.) He hoped that his hon. friend would persevere in the motion he had made, and that the house would by an almost unanimous vote affirm the propriety of the course which he had suggested. (Hear, hear.) Lord C. PAGET—The house has listened with great, I may say with surpassing interest to the statements made by my hon. friend and by the hon. baronet. (Hear, hear.) If I abstain from following them and from defending the department to which I have the honour to belong from the various charges which have been made as to its incapacity and want of ability, and as to almost every detail connected with Admiralty management, it is not because I am unpre pared to show that the Board of Admiralty has done its best under the circumstances in which it has been placed to rectify such errors as appear to have crept into its constitu tion, and into the various departments which it comprises. I abstain from attempting any such defence, because we have now to deal with certain resolutions connected with the building of line-of-battle ships. It will, therefore, be my business to show the house that it will be highly inex pedient to agree to those resolutions as they stand, because, if we do agree to them, it is impossible that the Admiralty can be responsible for the maintenance of your fleet ; it is quite impossible that the Admiralty can say, We have done what we consider right for the safety and honour of the country," if an abstract resolution of this nature is sanctioned by the House of Commons. With regard to the details of this motion, my hon. friend says, in the first place, that it is expedient to defer any further expenditure on the construction or conversion of wooden line-of-battle ships. Now, if my hon. friend had followed me three years ago, in the days when it became obvions to practical men that our line-of-battle ships were not likely to maintain the po sition which they had held in former wars, he would have conferred a much greater boon upon the country than by coming forward at this moment. Mr. LINDSAY.--The noble lord must surely have for gotten that I seconded his motion on the occasion he refers to. Lord C. PAGET.—I am alluding not to that speech, but to a speech which I made in 1857 and 1858, calling attention to the building of line-of•battle ships. My hon. friend now comes and asks us to abstain from building line-of-battle ships, but he couples this request with another resolution, or part of a resolution, which I think the house will see it is quite impossible that we can carry out consistently with our duty to the public, and with a due regard to the main tenance of the naey. He says it is not expedient that we should :either build or convert any screw line-of-battle ships. Well, I have expressed my opinion very often in this house with regard to the conversion of these line-of battle ships ; but my views have not been always followed out, and we have gone on converting as before. These ships are now in process of conversion. They are occupy ing your docks, and so long as that is the case the dockyards are not available for the repair of your ships now at sea. That is at once a reason why we should not agree to the motion to give up the conversion of these line-of-battle ships. There are four at present undergoing conversion. They will be probably out of their docks in the course of the present year, and after they are out I sincerely hope that there will be no more of these line-of-battle ships converted. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend then calls on the House to declare " that it is inexpedient to incur during the presen year the expenditure requisite for the completion of the line-of-battle ships now on the stocks; and that during the present year it is not expedient to commence the construc- tion of any wooden vessels which carry guns on more than one deck." Now, I have heard various arguments upon this question of woeden ships. Hon. members tell us on a sudden that wooden vessels are to be no longer component parts of the navy, that they are to be thrown ox one side, and that all our war vessels must henceforth be built of iron. Sir, lam not prepared, and Ido not think that any practical naval man is prepared, to subscribe to such a doc trine. (Hear, hear.) I quite admit that these very large iron-cased ships should obviously be built of iron, because you cannot build wo den ships of very great tonnage—at least, I do not believe you can—consistently with the strength which is required for such vessels. That is a rea • son in itself, but there are various other reasons why it is very advisable to construct these ships of wood. We have no experience to guide us as to the inadvisability of building small wooden vessels. One of the most serious defects of iron vessels is their liability to foul. In any future war speed will be the quality which will determine the su periority. (Hear, hear.) The vessel which has the greatest speed, and can carry, not the largest number of guns, but a small number of the heaviest guns, in all probability will have the advantage over other vessels. But iron vessels • in warm climates are so liable to foul that unless they are continually docked they cannot maintain their speed. I am not prepared to say that we may not discover some scientific method of keeping the bottoms of these vessels clean, but according to our present lights it would be highly inadvisable to give up building wooden vessels. The term employed by the hon. gentleman, carrying "guns on more than one deck," is so exceedingly vague that I don't under stand what it is that he means; but I must ask the house not to agree to any abstract resolution which would bind the Government to cease from building any more of that very useful class of vessels, corvettes and gunboats. The third resolution of the hon. gentleman lays down that "it is inexpedient without further experience to sanction the expenditure of any money for adapting her Majesty's dock yards for the construction of iron vessels." There is not the slightest intention on the part of the Government to adapt the dockyards for the construction of iron vessels. I am not prepared to say that the iron ship which is about to be built at Chatham will be built cheaper than a vessel built by contract. It is very doubtful whether she will be, but there are strong reasons under the circumstances why one ship should be built at Chatham. We have no experi ence with regard to building these vessels. It was quite impossible for any Board of Admiralty or any scientific man to foresee what improvements might suggest themselves in the course of the building of these vessels. (Hear, hear.) In building the Warrior we found that it would be advis- able, as the Armstrong 100-pounder admits of a narrow port, that her ports should be reduced in size. But the Warrior was ordered by contract ; the consequence of which is that we were tied to a certain form of vessel and a certain size of port, and to various other details which we have been otliged to alter, and the contractors necessarily come down upon us for additional sums in Tayment for these alterations: It may be said that these points ought to have , b een consider e d b e f ore h an d, an d no d o ubt it would h ave r".l. advisable if possibl e; b u t I ha ve always believed an d said that the greatest care and consideration was be stowed b y ray right hon, friend on the commencement of the formation of that vessel. We have found out since that we can get a greater flotation by giving a flatter mid ship section to the sister ship which is going to be built; but if we had entered into a contract for that vessel we should be tied down to the exact form of the Warrior. There are various other details with which I will not trouble the house which make it quite reasonable that we should try one vessel in our own yard with a view of carrying out any improvements which may suggest themselves in the course of construction. (Hear.) The hon. baronet the member for Finsbury spoke somewhat loosely on this matter. He is for having us confine the building of these vessels to the three rivers—the Mersey, the Clyde, and the Thames, and with singular favouritism he would exclude all other manufacturing ports. I don't know ;where he got his in- 5 formation, but he would have the house believe that the Warrior built by the right hon. gentleman opposite is a great success and will have great speed, while the present Board of Admiralty are building vessels which will have no speed, no stowage, which will be left behind to be captured by the enemy, and, in fact, will be totally useless. But when hon. gentlemen come down here to make powerful speeches and give the house all this information they are bound to give us something like truth. (Hear.) Let us see what is really the estimated speed of the different classes. The Warrior and the Black Prince, and vessels of that class, it is hoped, will have a speed of 14 knots ; the Defence and the Resistance will have a speed of llf knots ; and the smaller class of 4,000 tons it is hoped will have a speed of 12 1-3 knots. These are not vessels that can be said to be destitute of speed, or which cannot be expected to keep pace with the fleets of this country. In fact, Ido not believe there is a single line-of-battle ship in the navy which has the speed of the slowest class of these vessels. I trust, then, that with regard to these three resolutions the house will not agree to them, that it will put some confidence in the department which is responsible for building and maintaining your fleets, and that it will not tie us down to building nothing but one description of vessels. The hon. gentleman who moved these resolutions made some observa tions which I think he had not duly considered. He has come home printed with information from France. (Hear, hear.) I have no doubt that the Minister and the authori ties there have relied on him for setting right the English people, who were altogether in a mist and seemed possessed with an idea that the French had a large fleet, when in fact they had nothing at all. (Hear, hear.) But I don't think my hon. friend is consistent with himself in the figures he has given us. The last time he spoke he told us that the French had only 88 ships. Mr. LINDSAY—I referred entirely to of kient ships. Lord C. PAGET—In our calculations we only speak of efficient ships ; we only include steamships, and leave sail ing ships out altogether. My hon. friend says that Eng land has 22 line-of-battle ships more than all the world combined. But this is a statement really not founded on fact. We have 67 steam line-of-battle-ships built or building. France has 37, Spain 3, Russia 9, and Italy 1, making 60. I admit that that is a very great superiority. (Hear, hear.) But it does not amount in figures to what the hon. gentleman stated, because he stated that we had 22 more line-of-battle ships than all the rest of the world put together. Again, he says that we have nine more frigates than France. Now, England has 52 frigates and France 47, and not, as my hon. friend states, 43. When he comes to tell the House these things it makes it appear that we are going to an enormous and unnecessary ex pense in building ships when France has no force at all commensurate with ours. He tells us that the French iron ships will not be ready in 2} years. I say that is entirely erroneous. (Hear, hear.) I do not say that all the French iron ships will be ready in 21 or in 5f years, but I say that every one of the French iron-cased ships, big and little, may be ready in the course of the present summer. (Cheers.) I state that to my hon. friend on the best authority. I am not prepared to say; that they will be ready, but I say that every one may be ready in the course of the present summer. (Cheers.) With regard to the Magenta, one of the very largest of the French iron-cased ships, carrying 52 guns, it is only within the last two days I have been told that the Magenta is very nearly ready for launching. It is true that the plates have then to be put on. But it is unfair for my hon. friend to state that we are making these vast preparations, and that other nations are not making due preparations. (Hear, hear.) Ido not blame them. But I say that the French and every nation on the continent are making great naval preparations, and therefore that it is the bounden duty of Ministers to see that we have a fleet sufficient to maintain the safety, honour, and dignity of this country. (Cheers.) The hon. gentle man has quoted the Navy Estimates of France. He com pared the Estimates of past years, and he made out that the French are less than half the Estimates of this country. But will the house remember that we have to maintain a vast force upon the seas to protect our colonies and com merce, and that we cannot do that without paying for it ? (Hear, hear.) Our navy is spread all over the globe. Our navy is frittered away—(hear, hear, from Mr. Bright)—and large expenditure is the consequence. The hon. member for Birmingham says "Hear, hear." I should like to ask him what his Manchester friends would say if in some out landish country British ships were plundered and their crews murdered for want of a British man-cf-war to protect them. (Cheers.) There are constant demands from abroad for the presence of British men-of-war, and if you will maintain this great fleet you must pay the pip9r. (Hear, hear.) I wish to make allusion to the statement of the hon. member for Sunderland with regard to timber. I think, if there is one thing for which the Admiralty has been blamed more than another, it is for not maintaining a proper stock of timber. (Hear, hear.) It has been said, " You are build• ing your ships of green wood. You are living from hand to mouth, and no one could tell what would happen to the country if a war broke out when your dockyards are denuded of timber." (Hear.) What has the present Admiralty done ? They have listened to the wise advice which was given to them by many hon. gentlemen—viz., to get together a good stock of timber. If the house agree to the vote, large as I admit it is this year, we shall then be in a position in which we have not been for a considerable number of years with regard to the stock of timber.; and I believe that, come what may—whatever emergency may arise, we shall have a stock of timber which will enable us to repair and, if necessary, to build the ships which are requisite for the navy. (Hear, hear.) I will not advert to certain peddling reforms which the hon. member asked for with regard to the Admiralty Department. I have a comparative statement of the expense of the Staff of the Admiralty now and in former times, when the Estimates used to be only £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 per annum. It is not worth reading to the house, but if the hon. member would look at it, he would be satisfied, that every possible economy has been introduced in the personnel of the Ad miralty. In 1829, in the old days of the Navy Board, when 30,000 was the vote for the seamen, and the Estimates were £6,000,000 a year, the Admiralty consisted of five ands, 16 Commissioners, four secretaries, 26 clerks at Whitehall and 93 clerks at Somerset-house, making together 244 indivi duals, and the amount of their cost was £162,800 a year. In 1861—I will spare the house the intermediate years—when £78,200 is the vote for the seamen and the Estimates are £12,000,000, the Staff at the Admiralty consists of six Lords, two secretaries, five principal officers, 47 clerks at Whitehall and 223 clerks at Somerset-house, making toge ther 283 individuals, and their cost is £96,780. (Hear ) There is also a considerable number of temporary clerks, but in those days there was the same proportion. I cannot help thinking that with the great reform which the hon. , member wishes to introduce he might have spared the personnel of the Admiralty. (Hear, hear.) The hon. mem ber reverts to the report of the Commission on Dockyard Expenditure, and quotes very strong language used by that Commission in their report. I cannot but admit that the Commission have given, upon the whole, a very fair report, but I wish they had not rather left it to be inferred that de fects in the accounts of the navy beget suspicions of mal versation. lam quite sure that it was not the intention of any member of the Commission to leave such inference. I know of nobody who has ever accused any individual of malpractices with regard to the accounts, but the impres sion has got abroad. It has created great pain in the department, and one of the most intelligent and dis tinguished superintendents of dockyards has earnestly re quested me to remove it. (Hear.) I should state to the house, and I am sure the hon. gentleman who proposed the Commission will corroborate me when I say that from the first the Admiralty has been most anxious to give every in formation. To whom is it due that these errors, upon which such great stress is laid, have been discovered but to the Board of Admiralty ? The Commissioners would never have discovered the errors, but the Board of Admiralty took pains to go into the accounts, and through that ex cellent officer, Commodore Drummond, to check them ; and the moment any error was discovered, his instructions were to lay it before the Commission. It was the earnest desire of the Admiralty that every error should be laid before the Commission, with a view to rectification. When, therefore, the hon. gentleman says, "Look at the accounts—how worthless they are," he should at least do the Admiralty the credit of adding that the Admiralty have used their ut most endeavoui•s to have the errors discovered. (Hear.) I confess that I greatly regret the report should be so meagre. I wish the Commissioners had shown, by proper marginal notes, the evidence upon which each of their opinions is founded. (Hear.) It has been always usual to do so, and I must say that in that respect I think the Commissioners have not given the information which it is desirable they should have [given us. I believe the Admiralty have already taken steps to rectify these grave errors in the ac counts, and in August last, long before the Commission re ported, they instructed their Accountant-General to go into the dockyards and prepare a proper system of accounts, on the double-entry system, with a view to bring these great shipbuilding accounts under proper regulations and ma nagement. I think, therefore, that the observations of my hon. friend on the conduct of the Admiralty in that respect are scarcely justifiable. My hon. friend also stated that the average cost of ships in our navy was £33 per ton. The return furnished to the commissioners of the cost of ships built at Pembroke gave that average per ton, but then about a fifth of those ships were line-of-battle ships. As the Pro portion of line -of-battle ships constructed in the other dock- yards is only a tenth, it is clear that the average cost per ton throughout the navy is much less than the amount stated. The Admiralty do not deserve the condemnation which my hon. friend would pass upon them. They have earnestly endeavoured to rectify any defects in the adminis- tration which came under their notice. I believe I have furnished the house with mere information as to the ez- penditure and operations of the Admiralty than was ever given before—(hear)—and we intend always to pursue the same frank and open course. It is also the anxious desire of the Admiralty to exercise the greatest economy which is compatible with the maintenance of our navy in a state of efficiency. I hope, therefore, that my hon. friend will not press his motion, or that if he does the house will not agree to it. (Hear.) Mr. BENTINCK said it appeared to him that his hon. friend (Mr. Lindsay) took a somewhat singular course, and that he relied upon grounds which did not bear out the con clusions at which he had arrived. His hon. friend said that too large a navy was a menace, but he (Mr. Bentinck) was prepared to contend that his hon. friend had transposed the who le condition of the question. It was not the navy of England which was a menace to France, but the navy of France that was a menace to England. The requirements of England in time of peace were sevenfold more than those of all other countries in the world. His hon. friend said that France would never attempt the invasion of this coun try, because we were so superior in line-of-battle ships ; but he ignored the fact that amongst the great naval prepara tions of France for some years past was a class of vessels most adapted for the purposes of invasion, and which could only be required as against a country beyond the sea. His hon. friend placed the most implicit reliance on the state ments be received of the amount of money expended in the French dockyards, and said the system of finance over the water was one of control and guarantee. He (Mr. Bentinck) admitted that a system of control did exist in that country; but he did not believe that his hon. friend or any other man had the means of ascertaining how the money was spent. (Hear.) It was true that our own estimates were more than double what they were a few years ago; but from what did that arise ? From the menacing attitude of the French Go vernment, and the improvements of science in the con struction of our own navy. The hon. member for Finsbury (Sir S. M. Peto) said that nothing but iron ships should be built for the future; but if the third resolution proposed by his hon. friend—that no more money ought to be voted for the purpose of the dockyards constructing iron vessels —was agreed to, what would be our position in the case of the breaking out of a war ? (Hear.) With regard to the Board of Admiralty he (Mr. Bentinck) believed that if it was defective it was the duty of the House of Commons to effect its reconstruction, so that it might perform its func tions itmcienoy ror the benefit of the euuntly ; but any attempt: on the part of the house, such as that proposed by these resolutions, to deal with details which ought to be left entirely with the executive, would involve a principle which he could never sanction. The Earl of GIFFORD agreed with the hon. member for Sunderland in the first resolution, because he thought they might at least rest for a year from building any more ships, and he trusted that the ships now undergoing conversion in the dockyards would be the last that would be so treated. With regard to iron ships of war, he was of opinion that until the Government had had more experience as to those already constructed they should not give further orders. He did not agree with the hon. member for Sunderland in the second part of the second resolution, but in the last clause of the resolution he entirely concurred. He thought it was not expedient that they should convert Chatham into a place for the construction of iron ships. To do so would involve the necessity of erecting expensive machinery, engaging ex perienced artisans, and the building of a long slip for other purposes, and the Government would thus improperly oc cupy one of the largest dockyards in the kingdom, and which ought to be reserved for more legitimate objects. (Hear, hoar.) He entirely agreed with that part of the evi dence of the late Comptroller of the Navy (Sir B. Walker) which stated that it was desirable, and indeed essential, that the Government should have at their dockyards all the means of repairing both iron and wooden ships of the navy ; but he would ask whether they did not in their vast esta blishments at Portsmouth, Sheerness, and Woolwich, al ready pos Bess those means and which would be sufficient for all purposes during the next 10 or 12 years. In reply to the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, he desired to observe that the commissioners did not take credit to themselves for having discovered the errors pointed out by Commodore Drummond ; but the commis sioners simply stated the result of those discoveries in the appendix to their report. Then, again, as to the commis sioners having created a feeling in the country that mal versations had taken place in the dockyards, he did not remember the slightest reference in their report which could lead to such an idea. With regard to their re port on building ships at Pembroke, he would remind the house that under the terms of their instructions the com• missioners were required to state the cost per ton of build ing ships, and they naturally expected that some accounts would be laid before them for the purpose. (Hear.) But they found the accounts in such a state of confusion that the commissioners soon discovered they could not hope to give a reasonable answer. There were in fact no means of form ing accurate calculations, and their only alternative was simply to make that statement in their report. (Hear.) (The noble earl spoke in so low a tone as to be almost inau dible in the gallery.) Mr. CORRY said the first of the resolutions appeared to him to imply that line-of-battle ships and frigates built of wood were destined to be superseded by iron. He could not concur in that resolution. If the only object in building wooden ships were for the purpose of the defence of their own shores, he should not feel indisposed to go along with the hon. member for Sunderland ; but it should be remem bered that a small portion only were employed around the shores of this country; that the vessel of the largest class were employed for the defence of British interests all over the world, and of their colonial empire, which extended to the remotest regions of the earth, and that any interruption to the commerce with their dependencies would be a national calamity. As regarded the question of the defence of our own shores, it was idle to oppose wooden ships to iron ships, and we must depend not so much on our weoden as on our iron walls. The last Board of Admiralty, when they determined on building the Warrior, were much alarmed at the dimensions of these ships, and there was some discus sion on the subject, and the result was that one of the es . sential elements of these vessels was great and commanding speed, and that the required speed could not be attained with a vessel of less dimensions. He was glad to find that the vessel of this class which was recently laid down at Chatham was to be as powerful, if not more powerful, than the Warrior itself. If he did not agree with his hon. friend the member for Sunderland in the propriety of not building more wooden ships, he entirely agreed with him in the necessity of this country being superior to France in iron ships. He believed that the French government intended to build to more of these ships. Well, it was a disagreeable thing, inasmuch as one of these ships cost some £400,000, but if the French went on building them, we must do the same. Two years ago he was a member of what was called the Treasury committee, which was ap • pointed to inquire into the naval expenditure of England and France; and he remembered stating in this house that they found that from 1852 to 1856 inclusive, the French estimates were £19,800,000, whereas the expenditure was £31,600,000. He mentioned that to show that French esti mates were not very much to be depended upon. Sir J. PAXTON said he was a strong advocate for iron vessels. One of the greatest objections which had been urged to them was that the vessels became so foul at the bottom that they could not sail in the manner that they ought. But there was a plan for raising these vessels at no very great expense, which could be seen in operation any day in the Victoria Docks. The largest vessels could be raised in half an hour, placed on pontoons, and floated about with with the greatest ease, The apparatus would cost from £40,000 to £50,000, which was no great matter as cora• pared with the amount of these estimates. The Secretary to the Admiralty stated that there were ten of these large iron ships being built in France which could be finished this year, and yet the house was asked to expend £2,500,000 in building wooden vessels, and only £700,000 in building iron vessels. The Government of Sir Robert Peel com menced building iron ships, but they were soon stopped, and at the same' time an attempt, which nearly succeeded, was also made to stop the screw propeller. If it had not been for the Emperor of the French, iron ship-building would have stopped altogether in this country. At the time of the Crimean war we - had floating batteries, but they were not designed by us ; the designs were sent from France. The French had very little to do with iron, and yet we saw them striving ahead of us in respect to ship building while we were lagging behind. He contended that vessels should be built entirely of iron, and that every part of a ship should have the same strength. It was quite clear that no vessel could live before the Warrior for ten minutes. (Hear.) Wo ought to have iron ships, and better iron ships than any other country in the world. With regard to our wooden vessels, he believed they might still be used to go to the colonies and to distant parts, but we should find, after a little time, that the construction of iron ships would very much lessen in expense. When, in process of time, the navy was entirely reconstructed, not above half the number of sailors would be required to do three or four times the work at present accomplished. He did not wish, however, to lay any blame upon the Govern ment with regard to this question. It had grown upon them within the last few years. Science was making such wonderful strides in every department that from day to day new plans and new discoveries were constantly presenting themselves. As the greatest commercial and manufactur ing people on the face of the earth we must keep pace with - - our neighbours, and if France or any other country con structed impregnable ships, we must construct ships of the same, or better material. He admitted the Government had done all in their power to decide this question, but no Government was competent to deal with it. They ought to take the advice of the greatest practical men in the kingdom with regard to the construction of the navy. (Hear.) Capt. JERVIS said the manfacture of shells had been brought to such perfection that they acted as mines, and ex ploded within the timbers of a ship in the act of passing. He, therefore, agreed with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lind say) that we ought to give no more money for the construc tion of wooden line-of -battle ships. But it would take many years before we could construct an iron fleet, and yet we must still maintain our' supremacy on the seas. He ques tioned whether we had yet got the iron which would be necessary to construct an iron navy. In 1861 the power of offence in naval warfare was greater than that of defence, and it remained for modern science to ace whethe the balance could be restored. The hon. member talked of ships with 7-inch plates, but had he considered what that would in- volve ? Last year it was considered a great feat to launch a ship of 4,000 tons with plates of only 4 inches, At pre sent they did not know what were the proportions for plated vessels ; what the proper engines, or what the pro per armament. The Admiralty had acted therefore wisely and judiciously in feeling their way. While he was wil ling to afford every encouragement to trade, he thought the Government were wise in building at all events a cer tain proportion of their iron vessels themselves, and thus creating a check upon the prices charged by private builders. He should, therefore, vote against the third resolution. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WHITBREAD begged to assure the noble lord the member for Totnes that the difference between seasoned and unseasoned wood was not nearly so important as the difference between good and bad iron. (Hear, hear.) So sensible of that was the noble duke, the First Lord of the Admiralty, that last autumn he appointed a committee to make a series of experiments upon every description of Iron that could be submitted to them. That committee consisted of the most eminent men unconnected' with the navy, and although they hadnot yet made their report he had no doubt that their services would be found to be of the greatest value. (Hear, hear.) As to the expensiveness of the build ings that would be required to be erected in the Govern ment yards, he had only to say that those at Chatham had only cost £4,000. He could not deny that the accounts in the Government yards were not altogether satisfactory, nor would they be until a proper system of double entry had been introduced, but it would have been more handsome in the noble lord to have said that they were sufficient to show that no labour was remunerated that was not performed, and no stores paid for that were not received. (Hear, hear.) The late Secretary to the Admiralty said it was a great mistake to build iren-plated vessels of less size than the Warrior. Now the stowage of eoal of the Warrior and Black Prince at full steam was for .7 days ; of the Resistance and Defiance for 8 days; and of the last design for 5 days; but the stowage at ordinary steaming was for the Warrior and Black Prince 14 days; for the Resistance and the Defiance, b 3 days ; and for the new design 10 days. That was at least a mere satisfactary account than had been given of the mat ter. (Hear, hear.) Surely hon. members would not have had the Government go on with nothing but the design of the Warrior. Why, last year the Warrior herself was gravely criticised because she was not entirely covered with armour. Surely the only way in which to arrive at a satis factory result was to try different kinds of vessels. (Hear.) Efficiency was the measure of value, and every gentleman who had spoken that night had pronounced the iron-plated ships which this country possessed to be as superior as was possible to anything built or building in France. (Hear.) When for instance they complained that some of our ships were too small, they should remember that a very large portion of the Emperor's were very small ones ; and if it was a fault for the packing of our shipi to be of wood, the French ships were constructed entirely of that material. (Hear, hear.) As to floating docks, he could only say that they were not popular with naval men ; and he did not believe that a dock capable of floating the Warrior could be constructed for anything like £40,000. (Hear, hear.) Sir F. SMITH was glad his hon. friend the member for Sunderland had brought forward this question. His hon. friend seemed to think that the question of iron as against wood was settled. (" No, no," from Mr. Lindsay.] Then, if it was not settled, why were we to cease building wooden vessels ? At all events, if large ships were made of iron, he (Sir F. Smith) must contend that small ones ought to be of wood; and that because it was impossible to make them of sufficient buoyancy with any other material. As to the question of whether the government ought to go on with the wooden ships they were building, he held in his hand an important return which gave the number under con struction. He found that there were ten line-of-battle ships and twelve smaller vessels. He found there was a 91-gun ship of which only one and five-eighths of an eighth was completed; and five others of which only from half an eighth to an eighth and a half was built. Surely the noble lord would not go on with those ? Lord C. PAGET—We are not going on with them. Sir F. SMITH was glad to hear that; but he hoped the noble lord would clear the slips—would pull what was done to pieces and convert the materials. He quite agreed that it was most important to proceed with due caution ; but what he complained of was, that though five years had elapsed since the necessity of having plated vessels was forced upon the public, very little had been done towards solving the many problems that must be decided before we could hope to have a satisfactory fleet. Mr. DALGLISH said that when the noble lord the Sec retary to the Admiralty was in opposition, the burden of his charges against the Admiralty of the day was that they were always cutting and paring at the vessels. But now the noble lord himself proposed to put up a little establish ment at Chatham to find out the best mode of building iron ships. If thb noble lord were to go to the iron building trade of this country, and tell them the quantity and qua lity of iron he wanted, he would find that they would either perform what they promised or not be paid. (Hear, hear.) Then his hon. friend the member for Norfolk seemed not to have got over the recent panic about a French invasion. Within the last fortnight he (Mr. Dalglish) had been to Toulon and Cherbourg, and he could assure his hon. friend that any invasion, from that quarter at least, as far as the building of ships was concerned, was out of the question. At Toulon there were two small corvettes ; an iron frigate, which was then ready to be launched, had been launched within a few days past; and there was a transport of 500- horse power. La Gloire was also there, and after passing round her, he (Mr. Dalglish), although no great judge of nautical matters, could not help saying he believed that the iron ships built under the late Admiralty were infinitely su perior to La Gloire. At Cherbourg there were twcecorvettes. There was also a steamer about to be coated with iron in dock. They had also laid down the keel of a fourth vessel ; but neither the steamer lately launched, and about to be coated with iron, nor the other vessel, were nearly ready for service. With regard to the motion of the hon. member for Sunderland, there was one reason which should induce the Admiralty not to press on the completion of these large line-of-battle ships. It had always appeared to him that when steam became the motive power of ships instead of sails, that large three-decked and two-decked ships offered a great resistance when urged against 'the wind. He proposed to the noble lord to take the 90-gun ships now built and building, and to case them with iron. The noble lord would then have a fleet of iron ships quite as well built and as effective as those of the French. (Hear.) Mr. HORSMAN said he thought the house was under great obligations to the hon. member for Sunderland for having brought this motion before the house. The discus sion had been so ;interesting, and the result so beneficial, that he (Mr. Horsman) should be very sorry if the hon. member detracted from the effect of what he had done that day, by urging the house to a division which must lead to a very false impression of what was the opinion of the house on the question. There were very few hon. members who did not agree with the spirit of his motion. Even on the Treasury bench a general sympathy was felt for the views which he had expressed. The effect of what had been said that evening was to acquit the present Admiralty of all blame in this matter, and he (Mr. Horsman) thought they fully deserved that acquittal. He thought that whatever difference of opinion might exist in the house, they were agreed in this, that every subject connected with the navy was now well considered, and thoroughly thought out, and that all those who were responsible to the house for the ad ministration of the navy, acted upon that responsibility, feeling that every step which they took was carefully watched by the house. For many years past the whole question of Admiralty administration was a great mystery in the house. It was felt that the administration was at tended with great expenditure, with very small return. And here he must hear his testimony to the improvement ef fected by his hon. friend opposite (Sir J. Pakington). When he came into office, the navy was at the lowest possible point, and we had lost our command at sea. The right hon. bart. the member for Droitwich profited by the experience which other nations had gained, and he introduced the question of the comparative superiority of iron over wooden ships. The honourable member for Chatham (Sir F. Smith) said he believed it was now understood that the building of wooden ships would cease. He (Mr. Hors man) should rather think the conclusion to be that the building of iron ships should be gradually increased, and that of wooden ships gradually diminished. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. baronet went out of office, and the present Board of Admiralty came in. The house had had some ex perience of the Duke of Somerset, when he was a member of that house, as chairman of the committee on public expenditure. Acting on that committee, the noble duke established to himself a very high reputation in that house. The noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had also earned some distinction in the house, of which he had been fre quently reminded, often in no friendly spirit, of being a great naval reformer. For three years the noble lord made motions of which he had been reminded that evening, condemning the great waste of money in the public expenditure, and the general maladministration of the navy. The two first motions did not make much impression, but the last of the three made a very great impression upon the house, and, in the opinion of =ay persons, greatly contributed to the circumstance of the noble lord occupying the post which he now filled with great efficiency. There was only one point as to which he felt any doubt ; it was not as to any failure of intention on the part of the noble lord to carry out his reforms, but he (Mr. Horsman) felt great doubt as to his power. The right hon. baronet who seconded the amendment said that the little that had been done during the present administration was a proof that the noble lord lacked power ; he had not even the power, as the house discovered the other day, to send a telegraphic mes sage to which the Primo Minister had pledged himself in that house. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Some hon. gentle men seemed to suppose that the noble lord was at the head of the Admiralty. The noble lorJ, on the other hand, was perfectly conscious of his inferiority to even a junior lord of the Admiralty. It had been said that it would be impossi ble that year to initiate any reform in the Admiralty. He (Mr. Horsman) was one of those who thought it a pity this committee had ever been appointed. He thought public opinion was quite prepared for reform without the appoint ment of a committee. They must now wait for their report ; but when it did come he hoped his noble friend would then, whatever might be the views of this board as to his position, , . vindicate his own views, assert his own power, and carry out those reforms which he was the first to initiate. He _ _ would then prove himself to be one of the most beneficial reformers who had ever sat on that bench. Mr.W.IVILLIAMS said that £320,000,000 of money had been expended in the navy since the termination of the THE SUN,IILONDON,i FRIDAY, tp VENI -. APRIL'. 12, 1861. French war, of which £80,000,000 had been voted for the dockyards ; and whilst our navy was double that of France, we were still terrified by the bugbear of a French invasion. He trusted that now the extravagant waste of this depart ment would be put an end to, and that some lasting check would be placed on the Board of Admiralty. Si,: J. PAKINGT ON—My right hon. friend the member for Stroud has referred a gool deal to the report of the DockyardCommissioners,and has expressed a strong opinion that the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had en • tir ely fulfilled all that he had ever stated to the house, and more especially what he stated in a speech he made two years ago, which attracted considerable attention. I have no wish just now to raise a question of a controversial na ture, especially as my noble friend has already addressed the house, and is unable therefore to answer anything I might say. It is therefore with pain that.l advert to what fell :from my right hon. friend, but the clear interests of truth and justice stand above all reasons of courtesy. I am sorry to be compelled to say that I cannot concur in the view which my right hon. friend has taken of that part of the report of the commission. We have before us that re port, we have fresh in our recollection what was the language of the noble lord in 1859, and I find that the report of the commission does not uphold that language. I find also a special memorandum written by Admiral Robinson, the present Controller of the Navy, who succeeded Sirß.Walker in the position which the latter filled with so much ability for many years—l find in that memorandum distinct refe rence to the language of the noble lord in that speech, and a most distinct declaration that the noble lord had failed to establish the statements he had made. I am sorry to be ob liged to advert to this point, and I would not have done so but for the unqualified language in which the right hon. member for Stroud expressed himself. Ido not say the re port casts any censure upon the noble lord, but it does not bear out his own statements. At the time the noble lord made those statements I questioned their accuracy, and expressed my wish that they should be tested by a com mittee. I did not impute anything, for I had no doubt that my noble friend believed the statements he made were accurate ; but I entertained an opinion that they were made upon insufficient grounds. Those statements have been tested by a Royal Commission, and, as far as I can gather from the report, they have been found to be erro neous. I will not enter further upon that point, except to subscribe to the approbation that has been expressed of the manner in which the commissioners performed their duty. It performed a difficult duty with impartiality and ability, and the report it presented to the house is a most valuable document, throwing great light on the former administra den of the navy, and likely to prove a guide in those future reforms of the naval administration which all parties seem to require. With regard to the motion of the hon. member for Sunderland, lam very glad it has been made ; it touches a subject that ought to be brought under the consideration of the House of Commons. But I think the answer of the noble lord the Secretary of the Admiralty was not quite so clear as it should have been. lam not sure that I under stood it, and I doubt whether the house understands what is the exact position of the Admiralty on this question. The real question raised by the hon. member for Sunderland is, how far, in the present state of doubt as to the construction of iron vessels, the Admiralty proposes to proceed in build ing wooden line-of-battle ships 2 Ido not understand what the answer to this question is. The noble lord has told us we have 67 line-of-battle ships; but it is notorious that we have net that number. 53 is about the number we have afloat; 67 would be the number if every ship now on the stocks should be completed. (Hear, hear.) But how many of them are to be completed ? To this question, I think, we ought to have a clearer answer than we have yet received. It is no new question; the attention of Parlia ment has been direeted to it for years past ; and it is not con fined to iron ships only. There is another point of great importance that the noble lord has himself raised to-night; it is whether the new inventions in artillery will not entirely set aside the two and three-deckers in which we have hereto fore trusted so much—(hear, hear)—and whether it maynot be expedient to build our most powerful vessels with one deck only. (Hear.) The policy of the late Adthiralty was this—that whatever might be done with regard to single decked and iron-covered ships, it was the duty of the Go vernment of the day, looking to the state of Europe, to keep England safe, as far as all nautical experience could ensure its safety. (Hear, hear.) Theintention of the late Admiralty was not to exceed the number of 69 wooden line-of-battle ships, and on reaching that number to pause, and see how far the iron ships would supersede the old system of build ing. lam sorry the noble lord has not stated more dis tinctly the intention of the present Admiralty on this point. I wish he had stated where we are to stop in the construction of wooden line-of-battle ships. As to the motion of the hon. member for Sunderland, I quite agree with the principle of his first resolution ; I think there is a point at which we ought to suspend the construction of wooden ships. But I hope the hon. member will not press the motion to a division, for I should be sorry to give a vote that may be liable to misinterpretation; and I think the motion tends to take out of the hands of the Executive Go vernment a matter that ought to be left to its discretion. As to the hon. member's last resolutioA, I cannot vote in favour of it. I believe the Admiralty has done wisely in building one iron ship in a Government dockyard. The hon. mem ber for Finsbury (Sir M. Pete) has referred to the different classes of iron ships ordered by the late and present Admi ralty; he has stated that some of those recently constructed will not steam more than eight knots per hour. The noble lord admits that the two smallest of these vessels—the Re sistance and the Defence—will have a speed of only 1.1 knots an hour; yet he says that the ship of the greatest speed will have the greatest advantage over an opponent. I think this statement is unsatisfactory. The late Board of Admiralty ordered an iron ship of 6,000 tons : they were unwilling to order a ship of that size ; the ex pense was enormous, and the experiment one of much risk. But they adopted that size solely because they found it would be impossible to combine all the elements of a man of-war in a vessel of smaller dimensions. The present Board of Admiralty had built smaller ships, but at the sac rifice of speed. lam afraid that building these smaller and slower ships is a serious mistake. My noble friend says we have no experience to guide us with regard to these ves sels. That is perfectly true. We are proceeding in the dark. We have not yet had one of these ships at sea. The Warrior was the first launched, but four months have since elapsed ; I understand her plates are still not fixed upon her; and I fear that it will be months before she is fit for sea. Why not send one of these ships to sea as soon as possible so . that we may test their seagoing qualities ? I hear that the reason why the Warrior has not yet got her armour plates is on account of the tonguing and grooving plan which has been adopted. The plan is of doubtful ad vantage ; but this is the cause of the delay. The hon. member for Coventry has alluded to the enormous weight of the wood which is placed upon the Warrior between what is called the skin of the ship and the outer armour. I will not venture to contradict the hon. gentleman, but my information leads me to believe that he has greatly exaggerated the weight of the wood when he says it amounts to 1,000 tons. [Sir J. Paxton explained that ho said the weight of the wood in this position would be 400 tons.] Even that, as far as I can learn, would be double the actual weight. I have always understood that the weight of her whole armour would be 1,200 tons, 1,000 of which would consist of iron plates, and 200 tons of intervening wood. The hon. member proceeded to say that, instead of having wood, the whole thickness of armour should be iron. That is a question which is not at all decided yet, and which is still being discussed by the scientific men of the day. One of the points which has come before the Institution of Naval Architecture is whether it would not be far better to construct these ships so as to make one thickness of iron serve for all purposes of defence. There is a diversity of opinion- on this subject, and as yet we are in the infancy of the question. How necessary is it, therefore, that the Admiralty should proceed with boldness, I admit, but at the same time with caution; and, above all, how necessary is it that some of these ships should be prac tically tested at sea, so that we may ascertain the best form of construction. (Hear.) In the censures which have been passed upon the Admiralty for increasing the stock of tim ber I cannot concur, for fthink they have done wisely in making such a proposal. I see no prospect of the abandon ment of the construction of wooden ships. (Hear.) I see no prospect of adopting iron exclusively in shipbuilding, for the smaller class of vessels and frigates will, I believe, be built, as heretofore, of wood. Let the house bear in mind that we have suffered and are suffering from a deficient stock of timber, and from having been compelled to use unsea soned timber in building some of ships. (Hear, hear.) In the French dockyards an abundant stock is kept in hand, and this vote is ono which I hope the house will willingly assent to. (Hear, hear.) Admiral WALCOTT thought that timely consideration should be given to the plan of construction before our ships were commenced. Economy ought to be studied, no doubt, ) but only so far as was compatible with the efficiency of the , navy and the integrity of the empire. (Hear.) The noble lord had enumerated thenaval strength of certain foreign nations, • which provided, he said, altogether 50 line-of -battle ships, while we had 67. The right hon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington) had put our ships down at 53 only, though he admitted that, including those on the stocks, we might have 67. But, if we possessed 67, the number was not more than was demanded by the exigencies and necessities of the country. (Hear, hear.) Consider the number of our colonies and depen dencies. They numbered, ho believed, about 50. Then look likewise at the vast extent of our commerce. Wherever a ship could swim there was to be found a British flag, and under these circumstances we were called on to maintain a navy double that of all other countries combined. (Hear, hear.) He was at a loss to understand what could be the object of France in getting together so large a naval force. She had few colonies to defend, and he could not under • stand why she should want 37 line-of-battle ships and 45 large frigates, except to intimidate other countries. She would have to go a long way before she intimidated Eng land. He gave every credit to the right bon. baronet below for having placed the Warrior and the Black Prince on the stocks. He had visited the Warrior and thoaght her the finest model of a vessel possible, but he found that she could only carry six and a half days' coal ; that a great part of her hulk and her stern was unprotected, and that she drew a large draught of water, which last was a great disadvan tage For the complete prote4tion of our shores, and to meet all exigencies, we required, in additiori, a class of smaller vessels. In a great measure he agreed with the hon. member for Sunderlapd as t 9 stopping the building of wooden line-of-battle ships ; but if those already under con' struction were far advanced they ought to be finished. Be disagreed entirely with him as to the expediency of adapt ing the dockyards for the reception of iron vessels. In case of a war we mu s t h ave pl an t an d a ppliances for refitting these ships after an action. Much valuable time would be lost in sending them round to the private yards on the Thames, the Mersey, or the Clyde to refit. He looked ee carefully and anxiously to the taxation of the country as any man, but he held an efficient navy in the light of an insurance, and never would he consent to put any question of money in comparison with the risk of losing the corn' mand of the sea. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LINDSAY having intimated his intention to wi th ' draw his amendment, Lord J. RUSSELL explained that the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had been misunderstood w ha t right bon. gentleman the member for Droitwich. his noble friend had said with regard to what was to be done this year was that no progress would be made with thos e line-of•battle ships which were being built; but with re' spect to those which were being converted their conversion would be completed. The amendment was then withdrawn. NEW ZEALAND. Sir J. TRELAWNY rose to call attention to the sta te of affairs in the North Island of New Zealand. Having referred to the circumstances of the dispute between th e Ngatiawa and the Waikat o t r ib es as t o t h e ownership f the land on the Waitara river, and the offer by Teht l , t ., ° sell a portion of the l an d t o th e G overnment, though 11 the law of the tribe he had no right to sell, the hc° l ' baronet said that the papers laid before the House 01 ' tained evidence to show that great injustice had been d_ ~°l lB to the aborigines. Th e y comp l a i ned b itterly that, ichuiez we professed' to hav e g i ven th em t h e rights o f Bride citizens, we had failed to discharge towards them reanr, o the duties of Government, but allowed murderous conlue" to be carried on among them without check. The CO le : nists were anxious to ge t more l an d , though they ile° already what seemed to be quite enough for their pillr e l and, from the pape rs , it wou ld appear that the Govern eou out there were acting under pressure ; but when William King refused to allow the land to be sold the proper COT, would have been to r e f er th e ma t ter h ome to the Colonlll Seoretary to see whether or not he approved of land being taken under such circum s t ances . S ome years ago he An protested against guaranteei ng a l oan , an d now he found they were also required to pay a heavy bill for a war whir'. had arisen out of a gross blunder and a gross injustice' There could be no better opportunity than, on going int o committee of supply, for asking the House to hesitat e before endorsing the conduct of the Governmont, and h° should therefore move, " That while this House is pre' pared to contribute all the aid in its power to the Exeer, tive in putting dow n re b e lli on i n h er M a j esty ' s co l on y e' New Zealand, they rejoice to hear that the difficult 5 0 complicated questions arising out of the Treaty of tangi are to be referred to a special court for inquiry fram e ' diately on the reassertion of the Queen's authority." who would C. FORTESCUE o b serve d t h at any person V° would take the pains to study the Blue Book on Neal Zealand affairs, in a candid s pi r it, wou ld come to a ve T 9 different conclusion from Sir J. Trelawny, who reprr sented a small party in the island. It was, he said , ie mistake to suppose th a t th ere h a d b een any violat i o n °f the Treaty of Waitangi, or that there was any such invi t ' t able, definitive, and unive rsa l t r ib a l r i ght as that cla imed by the Ngatiawa tribe and Wirimu Kingi. He gave a cif tailed narrative of the trans a cti ons i n which the war orir nated, the real object being, he observed, to dispute th e Queen's supremacy, at the instance of a powerful nati ve organisation, which it was the duty of Governor Browne t° resist, in the interest of the colonists and of the native ° themselves. Mr. SELWYN observed that, under the Treaty of Wa i.. tangi, certain rights of property were reserved to the native* and the question was what these rights were. It was the opinion of well-informed Europeans in the colony that 11 " individual of a tribe could alienate land to a stranger wit h ; out the assent of the trib e co ll ec ti ve l y, an d t h e block t/i land which was th e cause o f th e di spute, and the S ale o f which by the Chief Teira the Governor enforced, was sub' ject to this native law. He admitted that Governor Broil/I le was a friend of the natives ; but he had yielded to pressur e ' in direct contraventi o n, as h e (M r. S elwyn) contende d, °` the collective rights guaranteed by the treaty. The Pl ea put forward in justification of the purchase, that the V s ' sessors of the land had been conquered by the Waikat e l and had therefore lost th e i r co ll ect i ve r i ghts, was overruled by a decision of Governor Fitzroy, who had restored th e , rights. He disputed the st a t emen t o f M r. F ortescne , that former Governors of the colony had conducted sales in th e same manner. Lord C. HAMILTON had arrived at a very differen t conclusion from Mr. Selwyn, to some of whose statemen t° he had listened, he said, with astonishment. He main' tamed that Governor Browne had been perfectly justified il l his conduct, and he explained the position of the Teiri l tribe, who were subject to the Waikatos, and had no other right to the block of land, he said, than that of occupation: Mr. HOPE could not support the motion, but he agreed with Sir T. Trelawny, that there should ba some tribunal that could investigate these questions. On the motion of Sir S. M. PETO, the debate was ad' Fourned. MARKETS AND FAIRS (IRELAND). On the order of the day for going into committee on this bill, Mr. BUTT moved that it be referred to a select commit tee, which was assented to by Mr. CARDWELL, after a few' words from one or two hon. members. The County Surveyors (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. The Admiralty Court Jurisdiction Bill passed throug h committee. • The other orders of the day were disposed of, and th e house adjourned. PAIRS ON MR. BAINES' £6 Boßouaii FRANCHISE BILL. FOR. AGAINST. Mr. Baxter with Lord Naas. Mr. Fenwick Mr Shaito Mr. A. Matheson ..... Mr. Osborne — Mr Comolly. Sir w. Somerville — Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Maguire Sir A. Agnew ... Sir G. For.,ter. Mr. 4 obbett Mr. .slitford. • Colonel Biddulph The Lord Advo ca t e — Mr. Mure. Mr. Wyld • — Mr. Kendall. . Mr. Dodson ... Mr. Deedes. Lord Raynham .......... Lord Valletort. Mr. Staniland — Mr. Gathorne Hardy. S , r H. Davie — Sir William Miles. Mr. Evans — Mr. Mundy. Mr. Lanigan — Captain Stacpoole _... Lord. d J n . Philami ilips..Hami l ton. Mr. Greene — Mr Blackburn. Mr., M`Mahon — Major Sibthorp. Bare, L. de Rothschild --- il r o . n 1V Mr. P. Urquhart ._ m Mr. E. Etlice, juu — Hon. Colonel B ernar d . jiollhianmCileight. n Mr. Vyner. -Hon. W. E. Duncombe. Sergeant Kinglake Mr. Collier . — Mr. Rogers. Colonel Tynte — Sir F. Kelly. Mr. Steel . ~ .. Mr. P. O'Brien.... ....... — 1 L CMa o rp r . cl tia G i enr a Lowther. l B w e a Y y n Mr. Talbot l. er. Mr. J. Brown Mr. C. Clifford General Arbuthnot. Sir i'. Winnington ..... Lord Dunkellin Sir J. og,ilvy Alderman Salomons Alderman Copeland — Hon. C. B. Hanbury. Mr. Hussey Vivian Mr. Whiteside. Mr. G. C. Crlyn — Captain Gray, GAS EXPLOSION.— On Wednesday, after the closing of the shop of Leighton and Co., hatters, in Lower Marsh, Lambeth, one of the imperfect shop pipes caused A most fearful explosion, forcing out the door panels, an d partly consuming the shop contents. The family were at supper in an ante-room, but, although greatly alarmed, re ceived no injury. The firm is insured in the County and West of England Fire Offices. [ADVERTISEMENT.] - Pills and medicine invariably sg gt avate and perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, dis appointment, and expense may be avoided by parsons' in indifferent health sending only their address to E. S. Barry, Esq., 77, Regent-street, W., London, and they will receive gratis and free by post the "INVALIDS' Owl( iiIIIDE," or Natural Restorer, without medicine or ex rpnse, of perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs, and refreshing sleep, to the most enfeebled, insuring the remove of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation, liver Complaints , nausea, epilepsy, paralysis, debility, nervousness , palpitation; cough, asthma, cons ump ti on, dropsy, flatulency, diarrllo3s' dysentery, biliousn ess, f evers, sore throats, °statute, col " noises in the ears, r h eumatism, gout, impurities, eruption~hysteria, neuralgi a , i rr i tability, sleeplessness, acidity, Palit' tation, heartb urn, headache, despondency, cramps, spagin; ki sinng, fits, bronchitis,— "Uncuestionably the safest Gull' to health." BIRTHS. • _, HAMBROUGH.—On the 9th i ns t., a t Pipewell Hall, thamptonshire, the Hon. M rs . A. H am b rough, of a Eva"' stillborn. HANEDRY.—On the 10th i ns t., M rs. Osgood Hanby: l l? of a daughter. PARKER. —On the 6th inst., at 87, Ebury-street, the wife of Captain W. Parker, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. • BAILEY—LUCAS.—On the 9th inst., at Crickhowell, Pr e ' conshire, Sir Joseph Russell Bailey. Bart., of Gifulat3k park, to Mary A nn , eldest surviving daughter of Sew Lucas, Esq., M.D., of Glan-yr-afon. THRUPP—PYKE.—On the 10th inst., at Bideford, Cora' rcander A. T. Thrupp, R.N., fourth s on o f C. J. ThruPP Esq., of Ferry House, Twickenham, to Anne Elizaherat younger daughter of Captain Plike, R.N., of Ford. 1)i A 7; HS. ARDEN.--On the 6th inst., at Dorchester, Christophe r Arden, Esq., aged 74. BENNETT.—On the 9th inst., at Edgbaston, Edward It , Bennett, Esq., age d 64. CANN.—On the 9th inst., at Wramplingham, Norfolk, the Rev. John S. Cann, aged 74. MuniLirst.—On the 9th inst., at Hyde-park-place, Edward Micklem, Esq., aged 80. PALMER.—On the 7th inst., at Coleshill, Warwickshire, Lieut. Charles Palmer, R.N., aged 69. He served in three discovery expe ditions . - to the North Pole, com manded by Sir. J o hn Franklin and Sir E. Parry. LONDON : Printed and Published by MIIRDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Office, No. 112,Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in th e County of Mi3dleso, Friday, April 12, 1861. V GRAP TO_Nt Right. area, 2t "e m u, a: () woe Starch 1 A R T NO lialf.y e l CO3IPA street, 1 at Twel tells of 1 The 13 Closed I elusive, Comp ---____ C( o ImREI 2 3c1 in el Inch Pc Plying and her under a til the A for No te: treaty, agent fe Every Adrrdra " Tende at Some oPonsibl tendert' the coni OF XTNGIO DEREI May ne treat yr, for mak at Dept Within 1 No Te Provide, rarth and the the said No Te the day lenderix Office oi from ear Posed sx Ever 3 Admire der for become for t TH Envow , &URV: EDI John El ztenry Profe J. E] Kamm.. Policy taken out in 1838 1841 3845 - 1848 1851 142, E ~E from been pearly and St the Pa invalid beinZl all caw In la g 6d. bottles Lando le the TIER/ effects body, Moe-3 and el during truss, eunge sent A S A Do An Poe office, E the L and is Price S K Liu ISTeml By th and laws. inexi the I Ho point Th stree Fo . 9 me& rid TOR ew lare e4l, dye 22e 101 Po ate Li