The Sun. — London, England, 1861-05-24 00:00:00

an efficient navy at the least possible expense, but this they could not be said to have at present. The inquiry recently made showed the system to be defective in many points. One defect seemed to him to be that the experienced men at the head of the building department in our dockyards were not now called upon to make drawings and plans for the ships which they constructed, although they were quite competent to do so. These drawings and plans were now made by one man or in one central department; but if the dockyard builders were allowed to snake them, it would, he thought, produce among them a spirit of emulation and of rivalry which would lead to ships being not only well built, but economically built, and would altogether be productive of the best results. The hon. and gallant officer proceeded to quote from the evidence gives before the Royal Com missioners by Sir. J. Graham, Sir B. Walker, 'and Sir R. Bromley, with a view to show the necessity of some more complete check upon the appropriation of the money voted by Parliament and the want of proper means for ascertain. ing the cost of vessels built in the dockyards. He thought with Sir R. Bromley that in the case of every ship there should be a capital account and a current account, so that the cost of building and of keeping her afloat could be at onee seen. With regard to the misappropriation of public money, the right honourable baronet had referred to an ex tensive building which had been erected out of funds voted by ,this house for some other purpose, and which had been built without the permission, and even without the ' knowledge of Parliament ; while to show the want of proper communication between the departments, Sir B. Walker said he had learned some facts which ought to have been brought to his, knowledge by first reading them in the news papers. Another point on which Sir B. Walker had insisted very strongly was the want of the necessary control over the dockyards. Four of the builders were asked by the cc ra missioners whether when they were shown the drawings by the Controller of the Navy they were at liberty to make any suggestions, and they all answered that they did not think they were. This ought not t.) be the case. There could be no harm in taking the opinions of these able officers. The Controller of the Navy ought not to have thrown upon him the invidious duty of opening all the tenders and of advis ing the Board on his own personal responsibility which should be accepted. It was said that the Warrior was not built on the lowest tender, and the house ought to know why. The reason alleged was that the parties whose tender was accepted offered to complete her in 11 months, whereas those whose tender was the lowest stipulated for 16 or 18 months. Time, however, was such an important element in all these calculations that the Admiralty ought to have specified the time which they would allow. The want of such a guide placed the parties on an unequal footing. The hon. and gallant member concluded by moving—" That it is expedient that such reforms should be made in the control and management of her Majesty's naval yards as will tend to promote greater efficiency, and consequently to insure greater economy in those establishments." _ . Mr. LINDSAY seconded the motion. Admiral SEYMOUR said the great difficulty of this question was to decide the particular reform which should be adopted. The question had been much discussed for many years past, and had been considered by various com missions and committees, but no proper system of dockyard accounts had 3et been adopted. (Hear.) He had no doubt, however, that the Accountant-General, with the advantage of the able report just made, would be able to introduce very efficient reforms, but having been himself at the head of two dockyards he knew the difficulty of the subject, and great caution ought to be exercised in entering on a system of account which, while it added greatly to the cost of the establishment, might not furnish the information which was required. In 1853 a new system of manufacturing ac • count-keeping was introduced, but, as it seemed to have no reference to the annual audit, he never could see the advan tage of it. As for naval expenditure, that was a matter which we could not run away from. There had been nu merous instances of important aid in building ships being afforded by private yards, and as an Englishman he was proud that the country possessed firms which could assist the Government in cases of emergency. The mode of keep ing accounts in France was inquired into about the year 1851, and in consequence of those inquiries a better system was substituted. As to the estimate for ships to be built, he thought the best groundwork was to be found in the actual cost of ships already built. Although they might lay down ships of the same class and the same character in the same yard, there must be a difference in their cost, on account of the difference in the cost of material and labour. The War rior was a great and new experiment, and he was not able to express any opinion as to the cost, but he hoped accurate accounts would be kept of the cost of the iron ships built at Chatham. (Hear, hear.) He thought the Accountant-General was perfectly competent to determine what :accounts should be furnished, and he could not conceive it necessary to go into details to the ex tent of returning to the Admiralty lists of the innumerable articles which were kept in store, some costing pence and some pounds. (Hear, hear.) He concurred in the impor tance of keeping full and clear accounts, but he was not prepared to say that minute details could be easily obtained. Lord C. PAGET.—I am very much obliged to my hon. fritnd the member for Chatham for bringing the important subject of the control and management of her Majesty's dockyard under the not'ce of the house, But he has not quite done justice to me in assuming that I am opposed to the report of the Royal Commission. I have made no re mark with regard to that report, beyond expressing my ap proval of it • which members might more easily refer to the evidence upon which the recommendations of the report are founded, have been omitted. Sir F. SMITH said he had made no comments on the subject. Lord C. PAGET.—The hon. gentleman, I thought, rather assumed that I was opposed to that report. Sir F. SMITH.—No. Lord C. PAGET.—AII I can say is that, so far from it, the Admiralty are extremely obliged to the commissioners for their valuable and able report, and for the careful con sideration which they have given to this important subject. (Hear.) The report contains, in the first place, very import ant recommendations as to the constitution of the Admiralty. It is obvious, however, that, as the subject is now under the consideration of a committee composed of the most able members of the house, it would not be advisable for the Admiralty at this moment to make any changes in the con stitution of the department as regards the control and man agement of the dockyards, even if they deemed any neces sary. (Hear.) I come now to the recommendations of the commission, which it is in the power of the Admiralty to give effect to at once. Although they occupy a good deal of space in the report, they are really very few in number. First of all, there is the important question of accounts. There is no doubt that the accounts of the ship-building departments have not been kept in a satisfactory manner; but, in justice to the officers of those departments, I am bound to say that I do not think the commissioners for a moment entertained the idea that there had been any mal practices in regard to pecuniary matters. (Hear.) The object of the commissioners was to point out the necessity of keeping the accounts in such a form that the Admiralty and the House of Commons should know what each ship in the navy costs the country. , There are undoubtedly great difficulties in doing so. If we turn to the French accounts we find that they are complicated by excessive minuteness of detail, and that they are attended with the further drawback that they cannot be produced till two years after the transactions to which they refer. What the commissioners desire is that the Admiralty should be en abled annually, as soon after the close of the financial year as possible, to present to the house an account of the cost of every ship in her Majesty's dockyards during the past year. With the view of Carrying out the proposal of the commis sioners the Accountant-General, who well deserves the en comiums which my hon. and gallant friends the members for Chatham and Devonport have passed upon him, has, at the desire of the Board of Admiralty, prepared a form of accounts by double entry, and devised a scheme by which all the bookkeeping and accounts of the shipbuilding de partments shall be entirely committed to the charge of one officer and an assistant at Somerset-house. These accounts will thus bo brought into one focus at the Admiralty, and the cost of every ship , readily and accurately ascertained. This proposal, which I ara happy to say involves not much expense, has been submitted by the Admiralty to the Treasury. I have little doubt that th e T reasury w ill agree to it, and tha t within a few day s this great reform , will be commenced. (Hear, hear.) My hon, an d ga ll an t friend is in error in stating that the responsibility of inviting parties ti make tenders for Admiralty contracts, and of deciding what tender shall be accepted, rests upon the Controller. The fact is, that the Con troller only submits a list of names to the Board , f rom which theyselect those who are to be invited to compete, according to their . own judgment ; and when the tenders are sent it is for the Board, and not the Controller, to decide which shall be accepted. I admit that there is much difficulty connected with the ti m e con t rac t s t o w hi c h m y h on . and gallant friend referred. In the case of the Warrior there were other ten ders which were less than that which was accepted ; but the contractors who got the order for the vessel undertook to build it within a shorter period than any of the others. I can quite understand that the Board of Admiralty, under the urgent circumstances of the case, should deem it advis able to accept a tender rather higher than some of the others, in order to get the vessel as soon as possible. It has not been completed within the specified time, but it is certainly not the fault of the late Board, nor of any d epartment of the Admiralty, that the contract has not been fulfilled. The case of the Warrior is a very peculiar one. It is a vesse l on an entirely no ve l pl an , an d itsconstruction has necessarily been attended with many difficulties. My hon. and gallant friend has said with a great degree of truth that every consi deration should be given to all the details of such a vessel be.. fire its commencement; but it is almost impossible, in deal ing with a new class of vessels, where we have had no expe rience to guide us, to avoid changes in the original plan. As I stated on a former occasion, certain necessary alterations were ordered by the Admiralty in the Warrior, as to ports and other details ; and, while I cannot hold the contractors blameless, I must admit that there were reasons for the de lay which has taken place in the construction of the vessel. It is quite true, as my hon. and gallant friend has said, that HOMO of the dockyard officers, in their evidence before the commission, unite in stating generally that any proposals which they have submitted to the Admiralty for improve ments in shipbuilding have not been encouraged. I believe that the Admiralty would be wise to call together the master shipwrights and other officers of the dockyards, and gather their opinion on questions of difficulty ; and I may mention that some of these officers have already been desired to sub • -- -- ---- mit plans t® the Admiralty for vessels for the defence of the coast. My hon. and gallant friend seems to hold that what we want is not men for the work, but work for the men. I can assure my hon. and gallant friend that in the dockyards, so far from onr having too little work for the men, the arrears of repairs of ships have accumulated greatly, owing to the large amount of building which has taken place within the last few years. We have a very large body of men now employed on repairs which ought to have been effected a considerable time since. My hon. and gallant friend, in referring to the evidence of my right hon. friend the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), spoke as ',if the Admiralty had power to construct public works without the sanction of Parliament. It may be perfectly true that the Victualling-yard at Devonport was built in a great mea sure without the control of Parliament, but times have changed very much since that was done. The Admiralty have now no power to commence any work without the sanction of the Treasury. That is a great check, to which my hon. and gallant friend did not allude, and it consti tutes a great difference between the present times and those during which the Admiralty hat' the power of constructing works without any control or sanction. It is also said that the late Controller made complaints that he had no control as to the stock of timber in the dockyards. I believe that there was some justice in those complaints. There has b ee n great inconvenience experienced, but it has arisen from this fact, that our departments are separated, and that, whereas they ought to be all under one roof and in daily communication with each other—(hear, hear)—we have the Controller of the Navy at Whitehall, while the storekeeper, an officer intimately connected with him in all business, is at Somerset. house. Constant communication between those officers has ceased from the day on which the Controller was removed to Whitehall. It is one of the recommendations of the commission, in which I heartily concur, that the departments should be re-united. The Admiralty is a great war department, and although we may struggle on in time of peace, yet if w: - ..r broke out to-mor row it would be found absolutely necessary that all its parts should be brought under one roof. This matter is considered by tho Board of Admiralty to be so important that we are already in communication with the Treasury upon the subject, and I hope that before long a great and beneficial change will be made. The hon. and gallant ad miral the member for Devonport thinks that the recom mendation of the commission, th%t there should each year be laid upon the table an estimate of the cost of ships to be built, could not be carried out. I differ from him. I believe that it can be done; but it can only be done when you have a correct account of what ships cost ; therefore, if I were now to lay upon the table an estimate of the cost of what we propose to do this year it would be only deceiving the house. My noble friend the Duke of Somerset has, in order that we may comply with the general wish of the house that we should give all the information which we can, em powered me to give a sort of rough estimate of what we are really going to do, and that estimate I should be glad to communicate to the committee when we get to Vote 10. I cannot oppose the motion of my hon. friend. At the same time I do not think it is necessary, because it is the desire of the Admiralty to carry out the recommendations of the commission, and as I understand that if it is carried we shall not be able to go into committee of supply to-night, I hope that he will not press it to a division. (Hear, hear.) Admiral WALCOTT was glad to hear that the recom mendations made by the Royal Commission were to be car ried out, and should in consequence abstain from entering into details with which he had intended to trouble the house. Many of the evils which were now complained of were the natural results of the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and others had arisen from the Controller of the Navy not being allowed so complete an authority as ought to be attached to so important and so responsible an office. The hon. and gallant admiral took occasion to state that the perusal of the evidence given by Sir B. Walker before the commission had convinced him that it was quite unnecessary that that gallant officer should have remained in England to be examined by the committee which was now sitting to inquire into the Admiralty. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY could not help thinking that any expression of opinion as to what the executive authority in tended to do with respect to the report of this commission was somewhat premature. That authority had not as yet had time to consider, still less to act upon the recommen dations of the commissioners. He had no hesitation in say ing that time sufficient had not elapsed to allow the autho rities to consider, and still less to carry out, the recommen dations of the commissioners, though the noble duke at the head of the service was not only able but most willing to advance any measure calculated to promote the interests of the service. (Hear.) The report of the Royal Commission had been somewhat strangely dealt with. It was sent to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the 11th of March, and on the 12th it was placed on the table of that house, so that, without even being read by her Majesty's Ministers, it was subjected to a good deal of criticism both in and out of doors. It was true that on the whole that re port had been well received—(hear)—but he thought the distinction had not been sufficiently noticed which was drawn between the cash and value accounts—a difference, nevertheless, which was very important, as affecting impu tations cast on officers in the dockyards. These officials were charged with keeping extremely loose and careless ac counts—(hear)—and the commissioners, in making that horo CreTatvalidn'7lv - ErCitelea'r i ly - showed Wed that - the ' Value . accounts were not worth a farthing. Persons out of doors supposed that such a state of accounts necessarily led to purloining the public money, whereas the cash transactions were altogether apart from the value accounts, as the com missioners took care to point out. And although these value accounts were thoroughly unsound, the house was not to fall into the error of supposing that they were of no im portance whatever, as without them the house had no means of knowing the cost of any ship, or of comparing one with another. Mr. Watts, the chief constructor, told the commissioners that he had looked to these accounts for guidance as to the cost of ships for many years, and was not in the habit of making any special in quiries unless the cost of two particular ships was found to be very disproportionate. For his own part, he very much doubted whether the Storekeepet-General had sufficient control over his own storekeepers, and whether that depart ment, consequently, did not require scrutiny. But it was undoubtedly true that some of the attempts at partial ame lioration had resulted in leaving things worse than they were at the beginning, while boards very often did not fol low out their own schemes for improvement. The effect of the change by which an accountant was sent to each yard was to take away the check which previously existed on the storekeepers' notes ; and at Woolwich lately a good many errors had been detected by recurring to the old system. He hoped the distinguished Accountant-General, Sir R. Bromley would do something towards ameliorating the pre sent system of accounts, and that the noble duke at the head of the department would succeed in restoring a greater degree of harmony between the principal officers. The Con troller, Storekeeper, and Accountant-General were all pull ing different ways, and the jealousy between them was carried to a pitch little sheet of absurdity. A board, as a board, he had always thought a bad governing body where manufactures on an enormous scale were carried on, requir ing the firm hand and sound head of a single responsible person—(hear, hear)—but, assuming a board of some kind to be a necessaity in connexion with the Admiralty, the noble duke, with the assistance of his colleagues, might do much, he thought, to set matters on a better footing. The prevail ing impression with regard to the unsatisfactory state of the accounts of the department had been produced in a great degree by the evidence of the Accountant-General, and he therefore trusted that gentleman maintained the same un hesitating language elsewhere. The noble lord the Secre tary to the Admiralty had truly stated that in the course of the inquiry nothing in any way bearing the semblance of malpractice had transpired ; had anything of the kind come to light, from the determined spirit with which the com mission was entered upon, it would certainly have been clearly and distinctly reported. (Hear, hear.) Sir F. SMITH said it was not his intention to press his motion, which he accordingly begged leave to withdraw. Mr. DALGLISH said the information given by the noble lord with regard to the intentions of the Government was excessively meagre. He had stated, in effect, that the Go vernment were precluded from doing anything by the fact that a committee on this subject was sitting upstairs. The public thought that the Admiralty was in a bad state, and no half measure would do. The gallant admiral the member for Devonport seemed to think that, provided our ships were well built, the dockyard accounts were of trifling importance. He concurred with the hon. and gallant gen tleman that our ships ought to be well built, but he also held that the accounts were of vast importance. (Hear.) An hon. member had praised the noble duke at the head of the Admiralty. He had no doubt that the noble duke was a very able administrator, but he should be glad if any one would point out in what res2ect the Admiralty had been improved within thelaat two years—if any one would point out one step that had been taken to improve it since the time when it was under the right hon. gentleman the mem ber for Droitwich. (Hear.) What improvements had been made in the department since those for which we were in debted to that right hon. gentleman and the right hon. bart. the member for Carlisle ? (Hear.) It had undergone no change for the better during the last two years, nor did he believe it would during the next two. The Admiralty was now extensively engaged in manufacturing. They would soon be manufacturing their own steam engines. The rea son given for this was that such a system provided a check against overcharge by contractors; but it failed in supply.. ing any correct standard of the charges in consequence of the unsatisfactory state of the accounts, which were kept in the most extraordinary way that ever accounts had been kept, (Hear.) It had been stated that everything manu factured in the Royal dockyards cost 50 per cent. more than if manufactured by contract. What was the system adopted in the French navy ? They built nothing themselves which they could contract for. The noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had assured the house that no department of the Government was to blame for the length of time which the Warrior had been under construction. He did not know the facts of the case himself, but he had every reason to believe that after the Warrior was contracted for the changes in re spect to details were incessant, and that to those changes the delay might almost entirely be attributed. The plan of the ship was drawn by Mr. Watts, of the Admiralty, and perhaps it was the boat that could have been adopted; bu --.....—. not one of the great shipbuilders who had furnished designs was asked a single question with regard to the plans which they had designed. With respect to to the question of ten ders generally, he had no doubt that the system had been very much improved. He believed that the most important step in the direction of that improvement had been taken by the right hon. the member for Droitwich, and he had no hesi tation in saying that the country was very much indebted to that right hon. gentleman. (Hear.) He should like to have seen the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty carry out his views of reform. He could not suppose that it was owing to any lukewarmness on the noble lord's part that he had not done so. He believed it was out of his power, and that the noble lord, to whom that house looked for every thing in connexion with naval reform, had no more power than a mere clerk. (Hear.) Capt. JER VIS did not think the explanation of the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty sufficient to satisfy the house that they ought without hesitation to grant the large votes now asked for dockyard expenditure. (Hear, hear.) It would be desirable to have the house put in possession of accurate information as to the cost of the ships that had recently been built in the Royal dockyards, for that would enable them to judge whether ships could be built cheaper by the Admiralty than by contractors. The cost of super vision in the dockyards was an important item, and if they compared it with the supervision in the War-office factories they would find an enormous disproportion as against the dockyards. He hoped the Board of Admiralty would take some decisive steps in bringing about a change of system, instead of waiting for the report of any committee of that house. A committee of that house had recommended that an Artillery officer should be held responsible for the manu factures carried on in connexion with the Army ; and why should an Admiral of high standing not be placed in charge of these Naval Dockyards. and held responsible to the Ad miralty for all that was done in them? (Hear.) Mr. WHITBREAD said his noble friend the Secretary to the Admiralty had not stated that he could not tell in what way the money was expended in the dockyards, but that the value accounts were so complicated that it was im possible to say how much was charged to one ship and how much to another. Neither did his noble friend propose to wait for the report of the committee of that house before taking any steps towards effecting important changes in the mode of keeping the accounts. (Hear, hear.) He hoped in a few days to be able to take measures for introducing a system of double entry into the bookkeeping of the dock yards. But, if gentlemen thought that this was an easy process, and one which could be completed without much labour, they were greatly mistaken. (Hear, hear.) The honourable and gallant officer (Captain Jervis) compared the expense of superintending the dockyards with that of the manufactories connected with the army ; but it was really impossible to institute a comparison between two establishments so essentially different. (Hear, hear.) When the honourable member for Glasgow asked wlott the noble duke at the head of the Admiralty had done to improve the system of the Admiralty, he seemed to have forgotten that the noble duke had introduced changes in the Controller's-office, by which the superintendence of the dockyards had been very greatly improved. (Hear.) Mr. W. S. LINDSAY was surprised that the hon. mem ber for Chatham should have been induced so easily to with draw his motion. No report had ever been so much dis. cussed out of doors as this report on the dockyards ; and no wonder, for it contained very grave charges against the pre sent system of the Board of Admiralty. (Hear, hear.) These charges were founded on evidence supplied by the Admiralty ; and it was not a sufficient answer to them to tell the house that a system of double entry was about to instituted. (Hear, hear.) A new mode of keeping the accounts would not enable the Admiralty to build ships at a less cost than now. Nothing short of a totally new sys tem would effect that object. The noble lord and the chair man of the commission said they did not know of any mal practices ; but were they prepared to say that no malpractices did exist ? (Hear, hear.) He held in his hand a list of the ships built in Pembroke yard between the years 1848 and 1859. They were 44 in number, and the average cost was £33 3s. sd. per ton. But there were 11 of ; the number, ranging from 230 to 420 tons' register, and hulls as good as those could be built in any private yard for £lO aeton. The next large class could be built in private yards for £l2 a-ten, so that the cost of building the seven largest vessels, instead of being £33, was no less than £49 per ton. He had often stated in that house, and he would now repeat, that the public ought to receive for £10,000,000 as much as they now obtained for a naval expenditure of £12,000,000. (Hear, hear.) He was glad to hear that the Admiralty were about to invite suggestions from master shipwrights and other competent persons when they determined upon laying down the lines for new ves sels. He thought the Admiralty might with propriety go a step further. The Warrior would, he believed, cost from £350,000 to £400,000 before she was finished. If it were important to invite designs from all quarters for our public buildings, why should we not invite the science of the age to give us the best models of new ships? A handsome pre mium should be offered to induce naval architects to com pete. Considering the value of obtaining the best form and lines for new iron ships, a premium of £5,000 would not be too much for the best model; nor would he debar the servants of the Government from com peting. It might be doubted whether the right form for iron-plated ships had yet been obtained. In the naval intelligence of the leading journal OFMlPe f slhr2o 7 cif a t f teq i t e l lge o N cl a , gv ,showed ilia/P -tak ea ble indications of being topheavy in her present trim. He was talking the other day with a gentleman from the Southern States of America, who accounted for the blood less operations at Fort Sumter by the fact that the fort and a battery in the harbour were lined with case iron of 1 in. or in. thickness, placed at such an angle that the shot glanced off without doing any mischief. It was worthy of consideration, therefore, whether our new iron ships should not be built of a new form, to allow of their plate armour being affixed at an angle say of 45 degrees, so that every shot might glance off either into the air or the water. At all events, a great advantage would result from throwing open the question of form to the competition of naval archi tects in all parts of the world. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. PAKINGTON thought that a good deal of the present discussion would have been more appropriate in committee upon the particular votes, but after what had fallen from the hon. member for Sunderland, some of whose observations were rather hard both on the present Board of Admiralty and on preceding boards, he could not allow the conversation to close without saying a Jew words. He con curred with the hon. member that it was impossible to over rate the importance of the matter which the gallant member for Chatham had brought under the notice of the hole e, but he could not admit that the criticisms which had been uttered in reference to the conduct of the noble Secretary to the Admiralty were quite justified, or that the present Board of Admiralty were open to the reproof of not having met the present amendment in a fair spirit. One remark had been made which, proceeding as it did from so competent a judge in matters of this kind as the hon. member for Sun derland, was calculated to excite dissatisfaction, if not alarm, with regard to the supposed system of extravagance in the dockyards. The hon. member stated the cost of a man-of war in Pembroke dockyard at £33 per ton, though it ought to have been built fo i e £2O per ton. Mr. LINDSAY explained that what he said was that, ' taking vessels of several sizes, the larger sizes cost £49 in stead of £33 per ton, but that the average price of all the ships of different sizes to eehich he referred was £33 per ton, whereas it ought not to have been more than £2O. Sir J. PAKINGTON did not know whether the hon. member arrived at that result by a comparison with the cost of the mercantile marine, but he could not admit such a comparison to be fair. The hon. member must recollect when he gave the average price, that the average was taken with respect to vessels of very different sizes ; and a differ ence of size in men-of-war involved the number of decks, and the number of decks was not included in the tonnage. He, however, admitted that the report was of a most start ling character, and he thought that the gentlemen who acted on the commission were entitled to public thanks for the manner in which they had discharged their duty. (Hear, hear.) He agreed with the hen. member for Sunderland to the extent of thinking that the report imposed a very serious responsibility on the Board of Admiralty. (Hear, hear.) The report involved two points,—the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, as regards the superintendence and care of the dockyards, and the way in which the dockyard accounts were kept. With respect to the first point, he thought it a fair answer to the present motion to say that the constitution of the Board of Admiralty was at present under the consider ation of a committee upstairs, and notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. member for Glasgow, to the effect that many persons connected with former Boards of Admi ralty were on the committee, he did hope that the report of that committee would be found entitled to public confidence. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Evesham had started doubts as to whether this great public department of the Admiralty could be properly managed by a Board, and he had himself ventured on former occasions to intimate simi lar doubts. It had been said that the report of the commis sioners disclosed a want of efficient control in the dockyards, and he need not say that 143 very much shared in that opinion, and also in the belief that there was an absence of adequate responsibility. (Hear.) He could not, however, agree with the hon. and gallant member for Harwich, who seemed to think that this was a most simple andeasy matter, and that the present Board of Admiralty had nothing more to do than to appoint an admiral to superintend the dock yards. If the hon. and gallant member were a member of the Select Committee he would soon discover that this matter could not so easily be disposed of. He was one of those who thought that the Government -would have done well to take the consideration of the whole matter upon themselves; but he now thought that it would be an extremely injurious course on the part of the Government, atter consent ing to refer the subject to a committee upstairs, to undertake a simultaneous inquiry of the same nature. With regard to the other part of the report of the Commissioners relating to the accounts, it was to be inferred from what had fallen from the Secretary to the Admiralty, that the Government were directing their attention to the important matter, and he was sure that the hon. members for Glasgow and Sunder land would admit that that difficult and complicated subject could not be in more competent hands than those of Sir R. Bromley, the Accountant-General at the Admiralty. The house had heard likewise that the Duke of Somerset was engaged in endeavouring to carry out the substance of the report of the Commissioners, and in effecting those improye- THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING; MAY 24, 1861. ments in the accounts which the report proved to be so ne. cessary. He should have thought the Admiralty to be guilty of a neglect of duty if it had postponed for one day longer than absolutely necessary the consideration of the evils which bad crept into the dockyard accounts, but after the assurance of the noble lord, and knowing how competent the Duke of Somerset was to deal with the affairs of his de- partment, be was bound to believe that the Admiralty was doing all in its power for the purpose of obtaining an accu rate system of accounts. (Hear, hear.) The amendment was then withdrawn. - VENETIA AND HUNGARY. Mr. GRIFFITH asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether information had been received that the Austrian Government were removing the troops of the late Duke of Modena from the territory of 1' enetia, and also whether that Government were transferring troops from Mantua and other fortresses in Venetia to Hungary for the purpose of the collection of taxes in the latter country. Lord J. RUSSELL said that as to the immediate ques. tion put to him by the hon. member, he could only say that no information was received at the Foreign-office re- specting the removal of the troops of the late Duke of Mo dena from Mantua, or that they were to be employed in the collection of taxes in Hungary. As to the policy pursued by Austria he was not called nor was it right he should state hiS opinion, but the hon. gentleman certainly misun- derstood him with reference to what he said the other even ing about Hungary. He said no more than that he wished that country to enjoy her ancient liberties, and that it would be found compatible with the rights of the present dynasty. THE CASE OF CAPTAIN M'DONALD. Mr, SCULLY asked the First Lord of the Treasury whe ther any communication took place between the British and Prussian Governments subsequent to the 4th of March last with respect to the case of Captain M'Donald, who was ar• rested and imprisoned at Bonn, and if so, whether he had any objection to produce it. He had received several com- kaunications on the subject which showed a strong feeling of resentment on the part of the Prussians in consequence of the observations made in that house. Lord PALMERSTON replied that a despatch had been received by Count Bernstoff, the Prussian Minister at this Court, from Baron Schlenitz. To that an answer was IT turned, and as soon as it arrived at Berlin there would be no objection to lay it on the table. SUPPLY. The house went auto committee of supply, Mr. Massey in the chair. A sum of £7,225,500 was voted to pay off and discharge Exchequer bills outstanding. On a vote of £3,000,000 for stores, timber for the fleet, &c., Mr. LINDSAY moved that the sum of £949,371 for timber be reduced by £300,000. They had 17 or 20 wooden line-of-battle ships more than all the world put together, and he did not see any necessity for building more. Only £350,000 was required when they built wooden ships exclu sively, and the house was now called on to vote a million of money. He was content to allow even £700,000, but the sum required was so exorbitant that he moved it be lessened by the amount already stated. Mr. BAXTER seconded the motion. He had an amend ment of his own on the paper to reduce the vote by £258,000, but it would be more convenient to settle the question on the motion cf his hon. friend. He had some remarks to make on the subject to which his hon. friend called the attention of tae committee; but before doing so he thought it necessary to take a survey of the state of the navy. Now, so far from the fleet being in an inefficient state, it had never been in a more efficient state than at the present moment. It was stated by the noble lord at the head of the Admiralty that they had more than double the num ber of line-of-battleships, that is, large frigates of war, than ' the French had, and carrying 20 guns, and they had at that moment serving in the royal navy of this country more men and boys than were serving in the royal marine of France. (Hear.) Another fact was that the merchant ships of Eng land had increased in every sea, while those of France had fallen off, and their neighbours at the other side of the chan nel were becoming very seriously alarmed lest they might not be able to obtain men sufficient to man the French navy. The fact was that impressment had the effect of deterring men from entering the navy of France. The people of this country had been unnecessarily alarmed by the reported state of preparations for war in the French naval dockyards. Now nothing of the kind was going on in France; and two eminent authorities who had been recently to visit Cherbourg, and one of the other French ports, had expressed that the reports thus circulated were neither more nor less than moonshine. He believed there never was a time when the navy of England was in a more satisfactory condition than at the present moment. (Hear.) They had, for instance, in the Medway 69 steam ships, carrying 1,522 guns, and propelled by 17,580 horse power. Then at Portsmouth they had 51 steam ships, carrying 1,235 guns, and propelled by 12,758 horse-power, and these were irrespective of their channel fleet, and of their Pacific and West India squadrons. Having, then, one of the most powerful navies that this country ever pos sessed, he asked in the name of common sense, with his hon. friend the member for Sunderland, upon what ground could they require a vote of £3,489,000, or £285,000 more than was voted last year for naval stores. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the timber, he begged to call the attention of the committee to the evidence of Sir Baldwin Wallrer on the subject. The hon. gentleman TM.> 4.1.. d wing that Sir It, tt miter had stated that there was great difficulty in procuring timber for ship building purposes; and he also referred to the evidence of Mr. Dun des, storekeeper to the navy, to the effect that the expendi bare of the country for timber was great, yet with all that they could not obtain the necessary material. "It is not a question of money," said Mr. Dundas, " it is a question of physical impossibility." He would now read a statement from the evidence, showing the great increase in the expen diture for timber. In 1852-3 the vote for timber was £270,000; in 1855-6, the vote was £451,000; in 1856-7, it was £385,000 ; and in 1859-60 it had increased to £672,000 . It was very proboble that the noble lord at the head of the Government was now of opinion that their national de fences were in an efficient state, and that being so he hoped that the noble lord would come down to the house in the next year, and showing that their defences wero in a satis factory state, submit that a great reduction might be made in the expenditure, and that the duties on tea and sugar might be considerably reduced. (Hear.) Under the cir cumstances to which he had called attention, he had great pleasure in seconding the motion of his hon. friend the member for Sunderland, who, he hoped, would take the sense of the committee on the subject. (Hear.) Lord CLARENCE PAGET quite agreed with hon. members that there was an anomaly in their reducing the vote for labour, and asking an increased vote for timber. : It was, however, well known to every gentleman that for the last two years the expenditure in the dockyards had been very great, and hence, therefore, an immense addi tional expense arose over and above what had been ex pected, and hence, also, their stock of timber had been reduced so low that he thought every one would agree with her Majesty's Government that it should be increased. (Hear, hear.) This year their consumption of timber was less than last year, when it was more than doubled, amount ing to 80,000 loads. The r.sult was, that they had now only 51,000 loads of timber in stock. They proposed this year to purchase 73,000 loads of timber, and they expected that the consumption of it this year would not exceed 42,000. Having, then, 51,000 loads of timber on hand, they expected they should have at the end of the year 82,000 loads, and that was not too great a stock of timber to keep up in her Majesty's dockyards. (Hear, hear.) That was, in fact, two years' consumption. If it should turn out that the Admiralty had obtained this timber before the consent of the House of Commons was obtained, he ventured to say that the House of Commons was pledged to that sum. (Oh.) He granted that the privilege of the House of Commons was great in matters relating to the estimates and to votes ; but he found in what his hen. friend the member for Mon trose (Mr. Baxter) had stated, an argument which he thought was an answer to the whole of the objections. That answer was to be found in his reference to, and statements of the storekeeper. Very remarkable statements had been made last year with regard to their stock of timber, and the Admiralty took every passible means of increasing the stock of that necessary, and of putting it on a proper footing. Hon. members said the Admiralty should not incur expen • ture for timber without the consent of the House of Com mons—(hear)—but hon. gentlemen might not be aware that it occurred that sometimes one year, sometimes two years, and sometimes three years elapsed before they could have a sufficient stock of timber on hand. Now, he found that out of their whole stock of timber, there was not more than one-fourth of it English timber. Well, if they were to wait for the assent of the House of Commons, the result would be that they would have no timber at all— (hear, hear)—and they therefore, made their :arrange ments to secure it. They had had ship-building firms come to the Admiralty, and representing that they could not obtain the necessary description of timber to carry out their contracts in the markets, asked the Admiralty to supply them with English oak plank. Well, the Ad miralty supplied them not only with that for gunboats, but with Dantzic and other timbers which could not be got in the market at the time. What, he asked, would be said with regard to the want of those stores, if the Admi ralty had not gone previously into the market and purchased them ? (Hear, hear.) With regard, then, to timber, he was bound to repeat to the hon. gentleman that not only was the House of Commons pledged to that item of expenditure, but that it was pledged also to a considerable sum for next year; and there would thus remain one• third mere which would have to be paid for. (Hear.) Sir F. SMITH said it appeared to him a mere farce to be discussing this estimate if the money had been already spent not only for this year but for future years. (Hear, hear.) They ought to know from the Government what contracts had been entered into for timber. lie should also like to learn whether the entire sum voted last year had been ex pended in the purchase of timber. Mr. FINLAY admitted that great loss had arisen from building ships of war with unseasoned timber, but he gave it as his opinion that the large sum of nearly one million ot money ought not to have been pledged or spent in the pur chase of timber without the sanction of the House of Com • mons. He questioned whether our navy in its present con dition was equal to that of France, which had more iron ships, and he could not agree with the hon. member for Montrose that the )3ritish navy was in such a state of efa- ciency as he had described it. To his mind the explanation of the noble lord the Secretary of the Admiralty with regard to thiS vote, either in its constitutional aspect or as to the application of the money, was by no means satisfactory. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON regretted that a subject of such importance should be discussed in so thin a house. He must do hon. gentlemen opposite below the gangway the justice to say that that was the only part of the house which presented anything like a full appearance. (Hear, hear.) As to the benches behind the Government and the Opposition benches he regretted there were but few /nem- bers on them. He believed that if the hon. member for Sunderland had been made a member of the Board of Ad- miralty by the noble lord at the head of the Government they would have been saved from several of these discus- sions on naval affairs. The hon. member had rather un- generously attacked him for the cost of these iron ships. He had never concealed from the house that these ships would be most costly. Mr. LINDSAY assured the right hon. gentleman that he had never attacked him. Sir J. PAKINGTON said he had always informed the house that the cost of the iron ships would be large. With regard to the immediate question before the house, it did not seem to be so much one of the amount of money as whether England was to remain the first maritime Power of the world. If she were, they must not indulge in those hot and cold fits about expenditure. A large supply of timber was an indispensable condition of that supremacy. The hon. member for Montrose said that he (Sir John Pakington) had asked for a vote of only £672,000 for timber. That was true, but he must, in justice, say that that vote was limited not with any reference to its amount, but from considerations connected with the state of the timber market. The supply of timber in the dockyards in 1859 was one of the largest stocks they had had for some time ; but when it came to be applied to the requirements of the navy it was found to be quite insufficient, owing to the increase of the navy. One of the evils complained of was that they were obliged to use unseasoned timber on account of the insufficiency of the stock of seasoned timber. Their motive for increasing the naval force of the country at that time was their comparative feebleness in regard to the French navy. On inquiry they found that not only was France going ahead of England in the building of ships of war, but that the dockyards of France were well supplied with an immense stock of timber. He thanked the Admi ralty for the efforts they were making to increase our supply of timber, and he expressed a hope that the hon. member for Montrose would not persevere in his amend ment for reducing the vote. Lord PALMERSTON said that if the thinness of the house and the small interest manifested in the question under consideration were matter of regret he wished to ex press his regret at another circumstance, and that was that two hon. gentlemen, anxious as he well knew for every thing which concerned the honour, welfare, dignity, and happiness of this country—who were themselves perfectly conversant with the great importance of the maritime trade of the country to our political existence—should come down with a motion in the shape of an amendment to the vote which would have the effect of crippling the navy, on the power of which the existence not only of their pro sperity but of their national existence depended. (Hear, hear.) The question was, not whether £600,000 or £900,000 should be expended on timber. The pith, mar row, tendency, and effect of the motion was whether they should have a navy or not—(oh, oh)—because if they de prived the Admiralty of the means of having h sufficient supply of timber they could not have a sufficient navy. (Hear,) His noble friend the Secretary of the Admiralty had informed the house that the vote asked for would only obtain a two years' supply of stock; but last year it was maintained that they ought to have a three years' supply in stock. All that was now required was a two years' stock. His hon. friend said they were now building iron ships, and therefore that they did not want timber. Many hon. gen tlemen seemed to think that iron ships were built entirely of iron, but the fact was that even in the construction of iron ships an immense quantity of timber was requisite. It was said that we should take example from France, and that as there was a total abstinence on the part of the French Go vernment of anything like naval preparations, it was ab surd on their part to have so large a stock of timber in store as that vote would supply. Did his hon. friend know the amount of timber in store in France ? We had 80,000 loads in our dockyards, France had,160,000 loads in her's. (Hear.) With a smaller navy, with a less demand for timber, France had actually double the amount of timber which it was the object of the present vote to supply our arsenals with. The argument for making the contract was in his opinion un answerable. Timber such as was required for the building of ships grew only in certain positions, and if they did not avail themselves of the occasions which offered of obtaining large supplies, other people would step in and we should re main without that which was essential to the maintenance of the navy. (Hear.) Under these circumstances he saw no reason for assenting to the motion of his hon. friend, even if the contracts had not been made. But there was no reason for blaming the Admiralty for making contracts for supply ing that material, which was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the navy, without which this country would be utterl3. ruined. (Hear.) Imagine if anyforeign Power, or combination of foreign Powers, had complete command of the sea; what would become of the imports =which the in dustry of this country depended? What would become of those exports without which their industrywould be employed without fruit; what would become of all those elements of their national inaependence for the maintenance or winch the command of the great highway of nations was indispen sable ? (Hear.) independent of the consideration of na tional defence, of menacing any enemy that attacked our shores, he was sure his hon. friend, who knew the commer cial interests cf the country, could not seriously wish that our navy should be deprived of those materials which were so essential to its existence. (Hear.) Mr. BRIGHT said that if the vote had been five times its present amount the speech of the noble lord would have been just as applicable to the proposition before the house. The noble lord had not condescended to go into figures, and he (Mr. Bright) did not place the slightest reliance on his opinion with regard to the stock of timber in the French dockyards. Once before the noble lord had misled the house by exaggerated statements with regard to the particulars of the French fleet, and unless he had something more specific he should not be disposed to vote the extravagant sum now proposed on account of his statement of the amount of tim ber in the French dockyards. Members of that house who recently visited the principal French dockyards, had not found there the large stock of timber indicated by the noble lord. When fairly examined he had no doubt that, like the phantom fleet of France, this would be found a phantom stock of timber. (Hear.) The noble lord's speech entirely evaded the question. That question was a simple one. It was quite evident that their expenditure for naval purposes had ex ceeded during the last two years that of former years. They had more ships of war than all the rest of the world put to gether, and it could not be necessary that they should go on increasing their navy for the next two, four, or six years at the same rate as they had been doing during the last two years. Mr. Dundas, a gentleman of great authority, con cluded that the consumption of timber this year would be re duced one half, owing b the excess of timber remaining from last year. There was no reason to suppose from anything the noble lord (who was in a very " Rule Britannia" mood that night) had said, that there would be any diminution in the stock of timber next year. This Admiralty business was the most extravagant and reckless that any legislative chamber ever had to consider. The £12,000,000 demanded by the Admiralty was to be expended by persons who knew nothing whatever about book-keeping, or the business for which the money was required. Even the noble lord the Secretary for the Admiralty was often driven to defend what he could not approve of, with regard to many items of expenditure in connection with the Admiralty. The noble lord (Palmerston) whenever those sentiments were criticised, said hon. members were not patriotic ; but £71,000,000 a-year was an expenditure that would test patriotism. Every £lOO unnecessarily expended was the purchase money of the sufferings and labour of the people. The time was come when there should be a reduction in the public expenditure, or a contest would arise between the Government and the people, which the noble lord himself wouid be the first to deplore. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HENLEY thought the Board of Admiralty werq bound to keep up a sufficient stock of timber. (Hear, hear.) Every man acquainted with the subject must admit that for the last 12 years the supply of timber had been inadequate. Timber required to be kept in store for three years before it was used, in order that it might be properly seasoned. The supply, therefore, should be obtained before the timber was actually wanted. (Hear, hear.) He regretted that in con - squence of a want of precaution in this respect some of our recently constructed ships had been built with unseasoned timber. The stock of timber in our dockyards at present was very deficient, and that deficiency should be made up without delay. The hon. member for Birmingham said that those opposed to the vote had much property at sea. That property might be insured, but the honour of the country could not. (Hear, hear.) It was, therefore, im portant that the defences of the country should be in a pro per condition. (Hear, hear.) He believed the proposed vote was perfectly consistent with economy, and would therefore support it. (Hear, hear.) Col. SYKES said our navy was at present equal to the combined navies of the whole world. Did our maritime supremacy then depend on the difference between 51,000 and 80,000 loads of timber? Certainly not. He thought the reduction proposed by the hon. member for Sunderland a very proper one, and would give it his support. The prac tice had long existed in India by which the quantity of timber and the price could be ascertained. Mr. CONINGHAM expressed a hope that his hon. friend (Mr. Lindsay) would press his amendment to a division. The value of iron over wood in ships had been established at Sinope, and he hoped that this fact would press itself on the attention of the Government. He did not think a case had been made out for this large expenditure for timber for ships. Mr. CHILDERS wished to know whether the 160,000 loads of timber in the French yards were French loads or English loads? Lord C. PAGET wished in the first instance to state that a French load of timber was 40 cubic feet, and he then enumerated the items which made up the 160,000 loads in the different French yards. There were 40,000 loads at Cherbourg, 30,000 at Brest, 37,000 at Boulogne, and at Rochfort 26,000 ; and at two other yards there were 25,000 P 43,4 7)500 loads respectively, As to the Luglielt supply, he expectod to have at the end of the year 82,000 loads, which would be only equal to two years' ordinary consumption. It had been said that all the world together could not pro- duce as large a fleet as England. That was not true. By the last statement received from France, amd since he made his statement to the house, it appeared that France was building ships to such an extent as to justify the English Government in not only proposing this vote for timber, but to render it necessary also to consider what additional exertions they ought to use with regard to their increasing their supply of iron-cased ships. The honourable member for Sunderland would doubtless question the accuracy of his figures, but he (Lord C. Paget) had the names of the French iron ships which had just been laid down and the date they had been put on the stocks. There were nine of them, and he took the account from the French newspapers. The first was the Provanco, which was laid down at Toulon in May, IS6I. This was a great improvement on the La Droit. There were two others laid down at Toulon, three at Brest, and three at L'Orient, while a tenth was about to be commenced at Cherbourg. The noble lord gave the names of the vessele—La Gloire, La Valarouse, La Heroine, Surveillance, and some others. The hon. member for Sunderland laughed. Was this a laughing matter ? If the hon. member had the responsibility of her Majesty's Go. vernment, and possessed the knowledge of what was now taking place in France, would he venture to cease building iron-cased ships ? Nay, he believed the hon. member for Birmingham, if he knew all, would be ready to join in the chorus of " Rule Britannia." (Hear, hear.) The statements which he had made of the ship building which was going on in France was upon the best authority, and he believed that the English Government would be neglecting its duty to the country if they omitted to make corresponding pre parations. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LINDSAY wished to recal the attention of the com mittee to the question before it, which was simply this, whether we could do with £700,000 instead of £1,000,000 for timber. Now, he had not proposed to reduce the vote for iron ships, but he did say we had more wooden ships than all the navies of the world put together. They were told that £1,000,000 would purchase 73,000 loads of timber, but he thought it ought to purchase a greater quantity at ordinary prices. He should therefore like to see those con _ tracts laid on the table of the house which the noble lord said they were bound by, and having a strong opinion upon the desirability of such an inspection, it was his intention to move that the chairman report progress in the event of the amendment being rejected. If they were not to sit there as mere dummies, the noble lord could have no diffi culty in acceding to a proposition so reasonable. It ap peared, according to the noble lord's own statement, that we had now 53,000 loads of timber in store, which was 20,000 loads more than in 1858. Our stock of timber had fluctuated for a long course of years, between 40,000 loads the highest, and 18,000 loads the lowest, and during all that time we were building only wooden ships. If the vote were passed, our stock of timber would be made to amount to 124,000 loads, less what would be consumed in the year. He would not refer to the quantity of timber stored up in the French dockyards, except to say that he thought the statement extremely improbable, inasmuch, during the last five years the French had not laid down a single wooden line-of-battle ship. Even if his amendment were accepted, the Government would still be enabled to procure a supply of timber double the average of the last ten years. The committee then divided, and there appeared— For the amendment 3O Against Majority against Mr. LINDSAY then moved to report progress. He thought there ought to be a fuller house to discuss those questions, and it was a sheer waste of time to come down there night after night to offer opposition to unnecessary votes on behalf of heavily-taxed constituencies, and then be told it was useless to do so, inasmuch as the Government had entered into contracts by which Parliament was bound. (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMEItSTON appealed to the hon. member not to press his motion, reminding him that the committee were perfectly ready to consider any argument he had to urge in support of his views. Sir J. PAKINGTON said that though he could not support the motion now made, he had been very much struck with the unusual langnage of the noble lord. He was well aware that contracts like those were occasionally ne cessary, but the fact ought not to be used as an argument to influence the decision of the committee. Lord C. PAGET hoped the hon. member would not persist in his motion. It would be quite impossible to ob tain timber unless Parliament would sanction those con tracts ; and the suggestion that they should be entered into subject tolthe sanction of Parliament was quite impractic able. No timber merchant would enter into such a con tract. Mr. BRIGHT wished to ask the noble lord whether there would be any objection to laying the particulars of the con tract on the table. He did not like to say that he disbelieved anything that came from the Treasury bench—(laughter)— and he had no doubt the contracts had been entered into as alleged. Perhaps, however, they did not include thewhole sum asked for ; and the Government would do well to re flect, that, after all, £1,000,000 was a large sum to be ex pended in timber in one year. (Hear.) Mr. M. T. BASS said he rose to put a question of much the same character. It had come to his knowledge that these contracts had been entered into on terms which were not the usual ones, and he should therefore ask the noble Slat,' al. piLaca. Lord C. PAGET said it was not usual to state the names of the contractors, or the contract prices ; but he held in his hand a statement of the quantities and prices of each article, which any member could see. They were in great variety, including English, Italian, and Sardinian oak, and their aggregate value was £949,371. That statement also con tained the sums to be paid in the course of the year. He would remind the committee, however, that the sum asked for depended upon all the quantities of timber named being received into st )ck in the course of the year, which was not probable. Mr. BRIGHT observed that that was scarcely what he had asked the noble lord to produce. He wished to be in- formed what the contracts were by which the house was told it was bound. Lord C. PAGET said the contracts had been entered into at different periods, ranging from the 25th January, 1859, to the 17th January, 1861. After a few words from Mr. CONINGHAM the motion for reporting progress was withdrawn, and the vote was agreed to. On the next item, £271,757 for metals, &e., Mr. LINDSAY moved that it be reduced by the sum of £71,757. Some years ago a commission of six mercantile gentlemen had been appointed to examine and report upon the anchors used in the navy, and others which were offered for its use. Of the five anchors which were submitted to them they reported that Trotman's was the best and the Admi ralty anchor the worst. Yet for ten years since the Govern ment had given the firm which made these anchors a close monopoly. The anchors were never offered for competition at all. For 20 years they had supplied the navy, though in that time improvements, such as Nasmyth's hammer, had been introduced, by which the cost of anchors had been greatly reduced, and they could now be made for one-half of what they formerly cost. The Admiralty were in fact paying three times the amount they could get better anchors for, and he therefore hoped the committee would agree to the reduction. Sir J. TRELAWNY complained of the last uncourteous treatment which Mr. Trotman had experienced from the Admiralty. His anchor of 100 cwt. cost £9O, while that of the Admiralty the same weight cost £365. Sir J. PAKINGTON could not agree to the reduction, because the hon. member had not told them on what grounds he made that particular reduction, and in the next place he had not told them on what grounds the commis sion of which he was a member came to the conclusion that the Admiralty anchor was the worst. That was a point on which the opinions of civilians were not to be taken, and all the naval officers whom he had consulted gave the prefer ence to the Admiralty anchor, because it was certain to bite, a point on which Trotman's could not be depended upon. Mr. CONINGHAM asked why the anchors were not put up to public competition? Lord C. PAGEI was a great advocate for public compe tition, but anchors were the last thing he should think of asking contracts for. They were what the ships rode by. With respect to Trotman's anchor as compared with others, as to price it was the highest of any, and it was uncertain as to biting or taking the ground. Now, in the navy that was a serious defect, because in going into line of battle each ship had to take up a particular position, and if the anchor did not bite at once a ship might take up the position of some other vessel. It was intended, however, to combine Porter's anchor with Trotman's by widening the flukes, so as to insure its taking the ground at once, and the. Adm iralty were ordering anchors of that construction. Mr. LINDSAY contended that t he commission which made inquiry 10 years ago came to the conclusion that at that time the Admiralty anchor was the worst anchor in use. But why, he asked, were not the great manufacturing establishments over the kingdom, which supplied anchors to the commercial marine throughout the world, permitted to compete for the contracts with the Admiralty? He fell so strongly upon the subject of this vote that he felt bound to persist in his a mendment. The committee then divided For the amendment ........ 32 Against it ..... 76 Maj0rity............ The vote was then agreed to. Mr. LINDSAY next moved that the sum of £lOO,OOO for iron, for an iron -cased ship to be built at Chatham, be omitted. He did so, not because he objected to iron-cased ships being built, hut to their being built in their dockyards. If that were once encouraged there was no knowing where the expense would stop. Those ships ought to be built by contract in the concerns of great iron manufacturers, who understood the working of iron much better than those em ployed in her Majesty's dockyards. He believed they could be produced in private yards much cheaper and better than in such a place at Chatham, and he should move that it be omitted altogether. Mr. CONINGHAM was of opinion it was totally un necessary to go to the enormous expense of building these iron-cased ships. A scheme for making a gigantic iron ship-building place in the Chatham Dockyard had been propounded, which would lead them into an enormous ex penditure, His opinion was that it was an enormous jobs and for his part he protested against it, and he hoped the committee would oppose the Government in the vote. (Hear, hear.) Sir F. SMITH could not see any connection whatever between the eilargement of Chatham Dockyard and the building of iron ships. He knew not why they should not build an iron ship in Chatham Dockyard as well as in any other yard. They had, in his opinion, two as eligible yards for iron ship-building in Chatham and Portsmouth as could be found anywhere ; and, with regard to Chatham, the experiment should be tried, were it for no other purpose than that of testing the comparative cost of building such vessels. He hoped, therefore, his hon. friend would not press his amendment for the reduction of the vote. Mr. BRIGHT was of opinion that if his hon. friend who spoke last were member for any other place than Chatham he would think and speak differently upon this matter. The hon. and gallant member said, build this one ship at Chatham as a test of the cost; but the fact was that the cost of one ship was no test whatever. The arguments of his hon. and gallant friend were the most flimsy that could be, and he hoped the committee would not be influenced by it to give assent to the vote. It was like the Keyham Dock, which, after they had expended about a million of money upon, was discovered to be a mistake; and the house, on making that discovery, came to the resolution not to expend one shilling more upon it. (Hear.) Of this Chatham. Dockyard matter, the committee knew nothing, and could not say whether it had been projected by the hon. and gal lant member, by the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), or by her Majesty's Go vernment. What the house ought to do was to appoint a committee of its own members to inquire into the matter, and on that committee he should like to see his hon. and gallant friend the member for Chatham. He (Mr. Bright) protested against the proposed plan, and he should like very much to move that the chairman report progress. Lord C. PAGET said the fact was that this vote had no reference whatever to the proposed enlargement of the dockyard at Chatham. He was bound to say that this matter had been regarded by her Majesty's Go vernment as one of great interest, and Chatham Dockyard had been chosen with a view of seeing whether the experi ment could be carried out. In reply to Mr. Alderman SALOMONS, Lord C. PAGET said that the keel of the Achilles had not been laid, but considerable expense had been gone to in. preparing iron work. Admiral SEYMOUR approved of iron ships being built in the Chatham dockyard, and expressed a hope that it would be used for the purpose of repairing these ships of war. After a few words from Sir F. SMITH the committee divided, when there appeared— For the amendment .. 31 Against it Majority —3s Mr. LINDSAY wished to make an appeal to the noble lord, and it was this, that the noble lord would agree to delay the votes of £140,000 for two troop ships, and £60,000 for machinery, for a fortnight. Lord PALMERSTON said he would agree to postpone the votes until Monday next. Mr. CONINGHAM could not agree to this arrange ment, and would move that the Chairman report progress. Lord PALMERSTON assented to the motion. The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the house re sumed. BOUNDARIES OF BURGHS EXTENSION (SCOT LAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL. This bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com• mitted. HOLYHEAD ROAD BILL. This bill passed through committee. LANDED PPOPERTY IMPROVEMENT, &o. (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. The house then adjourned at 25 minutes before one o'clock. COUNTRY MARKETS. BIRMINGHAM-MAY 23. At to-day's market there was a short supply of wheat from the farmers, and the few sales made of both English and fine foreign were at prices fully as dear. Other sorts quite unsaleable. Barley more inquired for. Oats, beans, and peas only taken in retail, at late rates. MANCHESTER—MAY 23. English wheat in small supply, at about late rates, with a meagre attendance and business most trifling. PLYMOUTH -MAY 21. The market again dull, with a small attendance, and no advance upon the currencies of last week—English white wheat, 60s to 665; red, 48s to 56s per qr; French do., 63s to 64s ; American, 61s to 63s ; Spanish, 69s to 71s ; Rus sian, 60s to 625. Barley in good supply, at 36s to 43s per qr for malting ; grinding, 32s to 36s ; oats, 24s to 28s ; and beans, —s to —s ; flour, 47s to 50s. CORK-MAY 22. The following were the quotations this morning :—Red wheat, 30s Od to —s Od ; white, 31s'0d to —s Od; barley 163 Od to 17s Od ; oats, 14s 3d to 15s 9a. EDINBURGH GRAIN-MAY 22. Wheat on the top Os 6d down average Os 6d down. Barley on the top Os 6d up.. .average Os 8d down. Oats on the top Os 9d down.. average Os 3d up. Beans on the top Os 6d up. cavortago i. ca up. Averages per Imperial quarter. Wheat.... New wheat . , -12ths Barley 1 19 8 8-12ths Oats 1 10 7 2-12ths Beans Total Supply and Sales. Wheat .1557 qrs Sold 1224 qrs 8ar1ey........ 583 qrs Sold 313 qrs Oats 1322 qrs Sold 1063 qrs Beans l4B qrs Sold 126 qrs In consequence of the delay in passing No. 11 vote in the Naval 'Estimates by the House, many of the improvements in the dockyards, &c., are retarded, and will in consequence be thrown back upon a part of the year when the weather will not be so favourable for the work being done. The delay will entail considerable additional expense. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—Perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs, refreshing sleep, and functional regularity restored, without medicine, purging or expense, to the most disordered or enfeebled by Du Barry's delicious health re storing Revalenta Arabica Food, which removes indiges tion (dyspepsia), habitual constipation, flatulency, diar rhoea, dysentery, nervsusness, biliousness, fevers, sore throats, catarrhs, colds, noises in the ears, rheumatism, gout, impurities, eruptions, hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleepness, acidity, palpitation, heartburn, headache, debi lity, dropsy, despondency, cramps, spasms, nansea, and sickness, sinking, fits, cough, asthma, bronchitis, con sumption, epilepsy, paralysis, also children's complaints. Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate and perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment, and expense may be avoided by u s ing Du B arry ' s F oo d which, at a few pence per day, saves 50 times its cost in other remedies, removing effectually, v .thout purging, constipation, indigestion (dyspep s ia) nervous , bili ous a nd liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew Ure, MD., F.R.S., Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Dr. Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of . spu rious and injuriou' imitations offered underavariety of false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibited by the high Court of Chancery under a penalty of £5,000 against Alfred Hooper Nevill and his agents; and the pretences that Nevill has a patent for Arabica Food and that Du Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly false. No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, ontheseal and wrapper. Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article lust expect to be distrusted in all others. Packed in tins lib. 2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 63. ; 51b. Ils. ; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40s. The 121 b. and 241 b. canisters are sent carriage free on receipt of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Re gent-street, London; Fortnum Mason, and Co. ; Abbit, 60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 62 and 150, Ox bard-street ; 330 and 451, Strand; 49 and 60, Bishopsgat& street ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement; Phillips and Co. tea-dealers; Petty, Wood, and Co., King William-street City; at 127 High 1-1 olhorn; and all grocers. [A nvErtusEmENT.]—Holloway's Pills.—Strength Re stored.—At this season many persons suffer from prostra tion of strength, arising in general from some disturbance of the digestion. In such cases the alterative properties of Holloway's Pills exert the happiest effects in renewing digestive vigour. It is wonderful to witness how the pale andl emac i ate d gain colour and weight under a course of these purifying Pills. They stimulate the appetite, aug ment the secretion of gastric juice, regulate the liver, cleanse the kidneys, and act as gent l e yet eff i c i ent aper i ents, w i t h ou t griping, weakening, or inconveniencing the sys tem. In a vast majority of c ases o f d e bilit y, ar i s i ng f ro m no perceptible cause, Holloway's Pills, judiciously taken, slowly and certainly restore order, and tbe invalid soon becomes stout and strong. BIRTHS. FITZROY.—On the 21st inst., at 1, Great Cumberland- street, the Hon. Mrs. Horatio Fitzroy, of a son. PETRE.—On the 23d inst., at 38, Brook-street, Grosvenor square, the Lady Gwendeline Petre, of a daughter. RATE.—On the 22d inst., at 21, Upper Grosvenor-street, the wife of Lachlan Mackintosh Rate, E sq ., o f e daughter. MARRIAGES. CHESMAN—SYMONDS.—On the 22d inst , at Brighton, Thomas Chesman, Esq., of Horsham, Sussex, to Marl Belinda, only daughter of Thomas H. Simonds, Esq., surgeon, Brighton. E DI VARDS—STuNT.---On the 23d inst., at Kingsland Con gregational Church, Mr. James L. Edwards, of Roches ter, to Alicia Frances, eldest daughter of George Stunt, Esq., of Tottenham. DEATHS. Asx.—On the 20th inst., at Corse-hill, Wimbledon, John Heneage Ash, Esq,, Assist. Military Secretary Comman der-in-Chief's office, Horse Guards, aged 60. BOWLES.—On the 21st inst., at St. Leonard's - on - Sea, C. Gardiner, fourth son of \al. Bowles, Esq., late of Filz harris House, Berkshire, aged 27. COOPER.—On the 231 inst., Mary, wife of Wm. Cooper, of The Grove, Kentish-town, aged 81. REA.—On the 22d inst., at Blackneath,William Rea, Esq., aged 89. STRIDE.—On the 22d inst., at Highgate-rise, Mrs. Stride, aged 71. VERwEy.—On the 14th inst., at his residence, singe ], Amsterdam, Wm. erwey, Esq., aged 71. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO 'YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TiE SUN Office, No. 112,Stra nd ' in the Precinct of the Savoy, In the County of Middlesex, Friday, May 24, ;sea,