The Sun. — London, England, 1863-03-06 00:00:00

the report of a committee appointed by the Treasury to in quire into the Navy Estimates from 1852 to 1858, and into the comparative state of the navies of England and France. Lord Derby's Government came into power in 1858. 't hey had 1.2 f!, office in 1852. In the interval a Whig Govern ment under various heads had held the reins of power. Lord Derby's Government, looking back on those sik years, saw that there had been a very great waste of energy and capital in our dockyards. It was, no doubt, thought, and really was, a good party move to bring out a report of the proceedings of the naval administration during those six years. Such is the nature of the document that I hold in icy hand. There is, first, a minute of Dec. 1, 1858, w hi c h appoints a committee of gentlemen in the Treasury to draw up an account of the expenditure on our navy during the six years from 1852 to 1858, and on the French navy, as far as they could, for the same time. It was a review, in fact, of the doings of the opposite party in naval administration for six years ; and we are likely under these circumstances to get more of the truth than when a Government appoint a committee to inq tire into their own doings. (A. laugh.) The minute under which the committee was appointed is signed " D." I don't know what that "D" stands for. There were two D.'s in the Treasury at the time, and both were men quite competent to appreciate the value of such a document as that I have here, ( Hear, hear.) I must premise that this report was in the hands of the Government at the time when the right hon, baronet brought forward the Navy Estimates in 1859; but it was not delivered to the House of Commons till the following April. Now, the whole ten dency of the report is this—it shows what it was the object of the able man who signed himself " D." to show, that during the six years from 1852 to 1858 there had been great maladministration in the English naval department, and that there had been comparatively great economy and judgment displayed in the French marine. Sir J. PAKINGTON—When was that paper laid on the table of this house ? Mr. COBDEN—I will tell the right hon. baronet all about it. (A laugh) The minute is dated December 1, 1858. The right hon. gentleman brought for ward his Navy Estimates in February, 1859, and this piper was " ordered to be printed by the House of Com mons "on the 4th of April in the same year. It was not in the hands of the house when the right hon. baronet brought forward his estimates. It seems to me that the right hon. gentleman mistook his case altogether. He had a brief put into his hands to pursue a certain suit, and he commenced an attack upon other parties. In bringing forward his scheme for the reconstruction of the navy he alarmed the country with an outcry that the French were making great and undue preparations in their naval department. This report, so far from justifying that, shows that in the num ber of men •ol- war the English navy was scarcely aver so strong in proportion to the French as it was then. All that it states is that the French Government had been engaged in very prudently converting their sailing vessels into screw line-of-battle ships, whereas we hadj been all the time building screw line-of-battle ships, and leaving our sailing vessels to rot in the docks. I may add, parenthetically, as bearing on matters on which I can promise that you will hear more before the Session is over—(hear, hear)—l may remind the house that between 1850 and 1852 began the system of converting sailing vessel s i n t o screw line-of-battle ships. It was acknowledged about the year 1850 that sailing line-of-battle ships would no longer be of any use, and from that time to 1859 the process had been going on of convert ing sailing line-of-battle ships into screws. And this re port, I repeat, says that while the English Government had been wasting their money in building new wooden line-of battle ships in order to put screws into them, the French had been more wisely changing their sailing vessels into screws. But there is nothing in this report which warranted :the right hon. gentleman in getting up in this house in 1859 and raising a panic by declaring that the French Govern ment were engaged in making undue naval preparations. More than that, I say that the able man whose initial " D." f.s appended to this document never could have contemplated any such use as that being made of il. But there are other things that go to show that our Admiralty, which is an old ffender (a laugh), has wasted the public money. In this report some tables are given that are most eloquent in themselves, and the few figures that I will read are exceed ingly instructive. Here is an account of the number of English and French sailing vessels in the years 1852 and 1858, In 1852 the British Government had 299 sailing vessels, and in 1858 it had 296, showing a reduction in six years of only 3. The French in 1852 had 258 sailing vessels, and 144 in 1858, thus having diminished in six years their number of ships by 114. The reason for this difference was that NI hile our Admiralty were allowing good sailing vessels to rot in ordinary they were building new vessels, in order to put steam engines into them. But here is another table, still more eloquent and instructive. It is an account of the English and French vessels of all kinds, both sailing ships and steamers, in 1852 and 1858. In 1852 the British had 475 sailing vessels and steamers, and in 1858 they had 760, being an increase of 285 in six years. The French in 1852 had 380 sailing vessels and steamers of all kinds, and 408 in 1858, being an increase in six years of only 28. France had been, as I before said, converting her sailings ships into steamers. Well, what is the conclusion drawn by the framers of this report ? 'Why, they recommend that the English Government should follow the wise example of the French. And the right hon. gentleman himself—l will do him this credit—in bringing forward his Navy Estimates, so far improved upon the mismanagement of those who went before him that he did commence converting 9 sailing line-of-battle ships that had been left apparentty to rot by his predecessors. He also began the construction of iron- clad vessels by ordering the Warrior to be built, but I am not sure that that much helps his case, because his having, at the very time he was laying down iron-clad vessels, entered frantically upon this career of constructing large wooden line-of-battle ships certainly diminishes the justifi cation which one might otherwise offer for him. The right hon. gentleman, in the course of his speech on that occasion, said the French were making undue preparations in re spect to line-of-battle ships; but in the report from which I have read there is just the very opposite statement. The two assertions are so completely at variance that I should like to hear the right hon. gentleman's own explanation on this point. It is of advantage that we should have these matters brought out face to face ; and I should like to know how, with this passage of this report in his hands, the right hon. gentleman could have raised the cry of French ag gression, e..cl stated that France was making undue pre parations in the construction of line-of-battle ships, Here is an extract from the report : " So convinced do naval men seem to be in France of the irresistible qualities of these iron-clad ships that they are of opinion that no more ships of the line will be laid deem, and that in ten years that class of vessels will have become obsolete." The report adds that "no line-of-battle ship had been laid down since 1856 in France, and there had not been a single three-decker on the stocks since that year." Therefore the right hon. gentleman and the Admiralty had fair warning from their officials of what France was doing, and I must say that since reading that report it has always been to me utterly incomprehensible how he should have made that speech in 1859, exciting so much panic here and out of doors. I was not in Parliament when the right hon. gentleman brought forward the Navy Estimates. L was in America. Wben I came home and found myself a member of this house I took this report, which then lay wait ing for me, but which the right honourable gentleman may have forgotten, as others seem to have done, and the very first time I had an opportunity of speaking in this house—viz., about the month of June, I brought this document out, and I said, " Why, it proved the very opposite of what you stated in introducing your Navy Es timates. And here it is, bearing just the same interpre tation now, but landing us in this dilemma, that the steps taken by the right hon. gentleman have led, no doubt, to a was'e of £10,000,000 sterling ; and even that amount, I fear, is much under the mark. (Hear, bear.) Well, if I turn from the right hon. gentleman opposite to my noble friend the present Secretary to the Admiralty, I am almost puzzled to understand which is in the worse case. (A laugh.) My noble friend has been my teacher in this matter of nasal architecture. I drew inspiration from him, aye, as long ns six years ago. I remember his speeches, how ad- Liirable for their forethought, their intelligence, their per fect knowledge of his profession. But, now, what an ab sence there is of such utterance as we had from him in 1857. I will read some of them, that the house may mark the - difference. (A laugh.) lam not much addicted to troubling the house with extracts, but I want to show authority for the course I wish to see taken on this subject, and I appeal from the Secretary of the Admiralty of 1863 to the Lord Clarence Paget of 1857. (A laugh.) Speaking on the 18th May, 1857, the noble lord said : " All his experience went to show that line-of-battle ships were not now so important an arm in war as they formerly were. Formerly line-of-battle ships carried heavier guns than other ships ; but now every corvette, sloop, and gun- LOU carried heavy guns, and he was convinced that no force 1 largo ship s cou ld w ith s t an d t h e l eg i on of gun b oats, '. ° Pe, and c orve tt es w hi c h t h ey saw at Spithead last year, " A g 6 in, he recurred to the subject in the same discussion, stud said rnntg n eJided,l his o pinion line-of-b a ttl e s hi ps were not the instru e" by, w hiqb in f u t ure t h e f ate of empires would be Ile added that,— ‘• Napoleon had observed that if he could only command th , ) Channel for 48 hours he would subjugate this count. He might, h owever, come to our shored at the present day etre:t a landing in the face of that noble fleet of small ves sels which the First Lord of the Admiralty had given within the last few years. Again, on the 12th of April, 1858, the noble lord reiterated even still greater confidence. He the same opinions with said— " He " He believed it to be the opinion ofthe ofnatvhyese that would be wise to pause in the construction mous vessels. That opinion was gainin g inground in France. ground in th r i; country, and much more was it gaining Be had been lately at Paris, and had had con versati ons with French officers on the subject ; and, whatever reports the late Fir s t L or d o f th e Ad m i ra lty might have heard re specting th e F renc h navy, h e cou ld give him pos itive in . formation that, so far from there being any activity in building large ships, they were waiting to see what would be done in this country. He was persuaded that it was the general opinion of the naval profession that line-of-battle ships were not destined to play an important part in future naval wars. It was believed that these ships would be superseded in the line of battle, and more particularly in attacking forte, by ships with one tier of heavy guns, and their sides cased with iron. He believed with the hon. and fo llant admiral the m em b er for Southwark (Sir C. Napier) that in ten years three-deck ers would be unknown, being cut, down into single-deck ships ; and, holding that opinion, m~ ~.~~ he thought it was a wasteful expenditure of the public vesselsy to go on, year by year, co ns t ruct i ng that class of money to go on, year by year, constructing that class of vessels." ( 1- lar, hear.) That was the noble lord when out of office ; and, really, when I think of what he was and what he is, it confirms me in the conviction I have long entertained of the great risk we run in taking seats upon the Treasury Bench. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Who can say that he would be proof against the contagion, or that he would rema n free from that obliviousness of all his past opinions and declarations which a place on that bench seems calculated to engender? (Hear, hear.) The noble lord came into office as Secretary to the Admiralty in the spring of 1859, taking that office on the retirement of Lord Derby's Administration. I cannot make my noble friend responsible for the firet Estimates he administered to as Secretary of the Admiralty, because they had been prac tically framed and passed under the auspices of the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich ; but my noble friend brought forward the Estimates in 1860; and he must have had considerable pain and suffering of mind when he had to recount to the house what had been done the previ ous year under his auspices. He stated that in the previ ous year the Admiralty had built 19,730 tons of ships of the-line, and 13,634 tons in frigates, besides converting four sailing line-of •battle ships and five sailing frigates into screw steamers. But my noble friend was now in office, and had got hardened, as I believe they do when they remain on the Treasury bench. (A laugh.) How did he look when he proposed the Estimates for the next year ? I was in France at the time, but when I read his speech 1 was glad I was not in the house to hear him bring forward such Estimates. In proposing, in 1860, his Estimates for the following year, he said be proposed to build 13,216 tons of ships-of-the-line and 13,500 tons of frigates, besides converting four sailing line of-battle ships and four sailing frigates into screw steamers. He expr, ssed his hope to be able to add to the Navy in the ensuing financial year eight line-of-battle ships and twelve frigates. This was proposed by the noble lord, who only two years before had told the Government not to waste any more money on these enormous ships, that they had had their day, and would no longer play their part in the late of empires ; and he altogether forgot the 140 or 150 gunboats, which he had ready to protect our shores. He proposed this enormous waste to the house, whicb, of course, sanctioned it. In bringing forward the Navy Estimates on the 11th of March, 1861, my noble friend recapitulated what he had been doing : " We have expended during the present year, or at least shall have expended by the end of the month, no less than 80,000 loads of timber, more than double the ordinary rate of consumption ; and «e have built during this year 9,075 tons of line-of battle ships, 12,189 tons of frigates, 4,138 tons of corvettes, 6,367 tons of sloops, 1,409 tuns of gun and despatch vessels, and 102 tons of gunboats—making a total of 33,280 tons." At a subsequent stage of the discussion he showed that we had 17 line-of-battle ships more than all the rest of the world. "We have," he said, "67 line-of-battle ships built or building. France has 37, Spain 3, Russia 9, and Italy 1, making 50." And he exclaimed with much naivete, "So far as large vessels are concerned, we are in a very satisfac tory position," making 50 tor all the world against 67 of our own. (A laugh.) The Duke of Somerset, speaking on the Ist of Ni ay, 1861, made this very remarkable statement:— "During the last eight months more men have been em ployed in our dockyards than at any previous period of the history of the country. I do not exclude the time of the g reat war down to 1815 ; and in this statement I exclude the factories altogether, which form another great division of our naval establishments, I speak of the shipbuilding department only." I venture to say, looking at the results of that expenditure, looking to the consumption of 80,000 loads of timber in the year and the employment of so large a number of artificers and men in our dockyards ; knowing, what every one knew, the tendency to improvement in naval construction —knowing what every one knew of the effect of the shell guns, I don't think the history of this country can produce a parallel case of such enormous— I might almost say, profligate—waste of public treasure What ought to follow such a state of things ? Practically I know there is no responsibility. My noble friend is in no danger, nor is the right hon. baronet opposite in any dan ger. Tower-hill is abolished—(a laugh)—and we have no secondary punishment for Ministers. (Laughter.) There is not even a penitentiary ; but I think what I have said—the reproduction in so concise a form of what the noble lord and the right hon. baronet have contributed to—must tend to produce some remorse in their minds; and what I should hope is this, that they will make a clean breast of it; that my noble friend at least, who, since he has been at the Ad miralty, has been administering to a state of things altoge ther contrary, we know, to his judgment, and one which he with his enlightened knowledge of these things, utterly condemns—that my noble friend will tell us, with that frankness which becomes his profession, what it is in the constitution of the Admiralty Board that leads the noble lord, with all his capacity, to administer to a state of things like this, with his recorded opinions, knowing, as we do, that he has not changed those opinions, but that he has been confirmed more and more in what he before told us. (Hear, hear.) But we can do nothing with statesmen who are most likely to be promoted and receive fresh honours. What has the house to do with the matter? What is the first deduc tion it must draw from these facts ? Let us resolve that we will never again let ourselves be frightened to do this kind of thing in consequence of the alleged preparations of a fo reign Power. This has all been done because the right hon. baronet, in 1869, chose to throw himself into a panic by a reference to the preparations of the French Government, and because the noble lord the First Minister has always been keeping the country in a panic on this subject, (A laugh.) Never again let the house for a moment be led away by such a representation. It were a useless recapitu lation except for the future ? but what has been the course pursued by the noble lord ? We have been told year after year by the noble lord that the French were making im mense preparations to rival us at sea; and when my hon. friend the member for Montrose, my hon. friend the mem ber for Glasgow, my hon. friend the member for Finsbury, and others in this house took the trouble to go over to France and visit the dockyards there in order to brng back the assurance that the noble lord's alarms were groundless, the noble lord only reiterated more and more his vague and undefined arguments fur raising continued excitement and alarm. So late as the 11th of March, 1861, when one of my hon. friends of whom 1 have just spoken had taken the pains to show that all he had seen in France demonstrated that the noble lord's surmises were entirely groundless, the noble lord at the head of the Government jumps up and says, " Really, Sir, it is shutting one's eyes to notorious facts to go on contending that the policy of France—of which I cer tainly do not complain—has not for a great length of time been to get up a navy which shall be equal, if not superior to our own." (Hear, hear.) Why, the tact is now demon strated conclusively that there was not the shadow of a foun dation for the noble lord's alarm. We know that line-of battle ships have been the sole test of power with maritime nations up to the p resen t ti me. Well, the French were ac cused by the right h on . baronet (Sir J.Pakington) i n 1859, and by the noble lord the Priree Minister alwaa s—(a laugh) —of making undue preparations to rival us at sea in line-of battle ships. What are the facts ? In 1857 Sir Chas. Wood stated that the French had 40 line-of-battle ships built and building, while my noble friend the Secretary for the Ad. miralty told us in 1861 they had 37—three fewer last year than in 1857, and we all know now that the panic got up on the assertion that the French were making undue prepara tions for war was entirely unfounded, and if the noble lord rises to-night to say a word on this subject, I warn him that the time is past for vague generalities, under which we are told fraud lurks. (A laugh.) He must deal with the facts and figures I have given. What, then, is the house to do? First of all, then, we must never again allow our selves to be put into a state of hurry or alarm. We must take warning by what has been done with these wooden line-of-battle ships, and not again allow the Admiralty to frighten us with a story of a raw head and bloody bones somewhere, into permitting wooden ships to be cased with iron, when we know that we had better wait for a few months to have ships constructed entirely of iron. (Hear.) We must do more. I have said there are 106 large useless vessels, and I challenge any naval authority to show that they are not useless. What is to be done with them ? What number of those vessels have we in commis sion ? I believe we have about 47 in commission, and I have formed an estimate as far as I could of the number of men that are probably employed on board those vessels, or in the contingents ashore necessary to be kept up for manning those ships, and I am sure I am very much under the mark when I say that th ere are 30,000 seamen employed in those useless ships of war. Let it again be understood that these ships are not merely useless, but they would be positively dangerous to you if employed in Ulm of war. I venture to I say that a great inventor of artillery, like Mr. Whitworth, would desire nothing more than that an enemy should give him such a target as a wooden line-of-battle ship or huge frigate with 800 or 1,000 men on board, the vessel being composed of combustible material, p ith that number of men crowded into the smallest possible amount of space, and with 30 or 40 tons of gunpowder under their feet. What artillerist could desire anything better than that an enemy should place himself in such a position to be de. stroyed ? You know that all this is true. Can it be for the advantage of the country that we should keep 30,000 men in these useless vessels ? Our ships of war existed for pur poses of war, but if war broke out could we employ those great wooden ships ? I say you would not dare to send those wooden ships to the coast of America if we were at war there. But that is not all. Your security, your hon our, your vital interests are bound up in this question. Is it fair to your naval officers and seamen that they should be placed in such a position.—(Hear, hear)—that they must be doomed to certain destruction in performing their duty, or must accept the dishonourable alternative of retreating before the enemy ? (Hear, hear.) lam not so technically informed as to be able to speak of my own knowledge, but I speakspeakt!lways from good autho r ity, an d I am told that the di tthh a ee e s i de p l uit i i n ine e n a t a n d ey eap er i ence which sailors are ge tti ng on b oard e - ot-battle s hi ps i s not suc h as to qualify them for rm e see i s t would have to perform in case o f war i n an other c l ass in o t f er ß e h a i t " of theln cononnptoryintthoaftvitehwesceaennol e u s thatsip iost for rr the should be kept manned in this way. theyin such a a t they are dangerous, th en, f are useless, s ti state there not th e fi nanc i a l aspect of the country to be considereaee I the y country as to be inclined to look on calmly and conten tedly whilethis ho use is worse than wastin g millions of m onev, ex pg it in a manner which imperil s our honour and our safety ? Will that meet the approbation of the country, and is not somethiug more due to our constituents? (Hear.) We have heard what a noble lord a Conservative peer in another place has said. I have read that noble lord's speeches upon other occasions, and although upon ilo other subject should we be likely to agree, yet upon nautical questions I have perceived that that noble lord always speaks with the frankness of a sailor and with a good deal of the sagacity of a statesman. After that noble lord has declared that we have voted an excessive number of men, I put it to my hon. friends around me, could we have a more severe rebuke administered to us ? (Hear.) We are called, par excellence, the Reform party, and sometimes the party of financial reform. We represent generally the trad • ing and manufacturing interests as contrasted with the ter ritorial interests, which are supposed to be represented on the other side. We know something of the care and pru dence, the due regard to ways and means which are neces sary to our constituents, to enable them to apply their in dustry, and to compete with the rest of the world in the various pursuits in which they are engaged. Economy and fruga' ity and a due attention to the various changes taking place in the mechanical and scientific world is the first ele ment of their success. Are we then doing justice to our constituents when we allow a Government calling itself a Reform Government and one of retrenchment to bring for ward a vote of 76,000 men, when it is demonstrated that they cannot be employed except with great danger to the coun try, and when we hear that vote condemned by a represen tative of the higher orders of the aristocracy ? What can come of such a state of things ? Will not these facts sink into the hearis of the rank and file of the £lO householders, the industrious and struggling class which constitutes the strength of our electoral body ? Are you not ashamed of it, as a mere question of statesmanship ? I say that a states. man who pursues such a policy—who says he will have 76,000 men—that he will not reason or argue about the number, but would have 76,000 because we had as many the year before—l say such a statesman must be as obso lete and as unseasonable as the wooden vessels themselves. ((Hear, and laughter.) I will make an appeal to hon. gen tlemen opposite. You represent the territorial interest, and it is generally attributed to yeu that you have rather a de- sire to keep up these great establishments. It is generally attributed to you that you like to see the services well sus tained, but can it be for your interests, can it be for the in terest of anybody so largely responsible as you are for the good government of the country—and I warn you that you have worse times to come than you can guess—can it be your interest to maintain such a state of things ? lam not speaking now in the spirit of one bearing hostility to the navy. Liberal politicians have more liking for the navy as contradistinguished from the army. (Hear.) We have no prejudices against the navy, which has never been employed by the Government for repressive purposes in internal struggles in this country. I have said before I would vote any sum to make these islands invulnerable by sea, but I shall never recognise the necessity of defending the country inland by means of fortifications. (Hear.) Can any party in this house wish to continue such enormous waste of money ? I do not mean to say that every one of these 46 large yes sels should be at once put out of commission. I know that is impracticable, but what I do say is that, under all the circumstances, I consider the proposal of a vote of 76,000 men, a large proportion of whom are to be employed —as it is demonstrated they must be empb yed, if a► all—in this useless manner, to make no reduction in this large vote, is I think an insult and an outrage upon the common sense of the country. I appeal to both sides of the house, even yet before this measure passes into law, to consider the matter, taking into consideration the condition of the country, and the facts and merits of the question, and I think you will find that, with due regard to the honour and security of the country, you can mike a considerable reduction in the num ber of men which has been proposed to you. (Cheers.) Lord R. MONTAGU said he had been rather puzzled to find what direct issue the hon. gentleman intended to raise. At the beginning and again at the close of his speech the hen. gentleman laid down that we did not require so many seamen. It would be a very courageous Government that would venture to propose a reduction in the number of sea men. It might be the fact that iron ships did not require so many men as wooden ships, but we had only 11 iron ships. and that number could not be consiiered as sufficient for the defence of our coasts, our colonies, and our commerce. Another issue which the hon. gentleman had raised seemed to be as to which party was most to be blamed. The country was neither Whig nor Tory, and cared nothing for party. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman had im plied that they on the Opposition side of the house, repre senting territorial interests, desired to support a large ex penditure. Now, he denied this charge, and would ask the hon. gentleman whether he himself had ever attempted in Committee of Supply to reduce expenditure. When mcney was being voted on those occasions the benches be low the gangway on the Ministerial side were generally empty, and motions for reduction received comparatively little support. He cordially agreed with the hon, gentle man as to the desirability of forming the best form of ves sel, and one containing all the latest improvements. Last year he had moved for a return of inventions and improve ments sent to the Admiralty, his object being to show that inventions were shelved there and received no attention whatever. Allusion had been made to Capt. Coles' cupola ships and to their adoption by the Admiralty, but these ships were invented in 1854, and though a committee re ported in their favour they received not the slightest notice till after the performances of the Monitor. The Admiralty had always been behindhand; they were behindhand in turning the line-of-battle ships into screw propellers, and they were behindhand in converting the navy from one of wood into one of iron. The fact was that another recon struction was still more requisite—the reconstruction of the Admiralty, which was at the head of the navy. The respec tive jurisdictions of the members of the Board were quite undefined, and that being so no wonder the navy was badly administered. Mr. LINDSAY wished to put a question to the noble lord with regard to the position of the masters of the Royal navy. In 1846 an order in Council was passed recommend ing that masters should be promoted for distinguished ser vices. During the Russian war their services were of great value, but not a single master was raised to the rank of com mander. He did not ask any increase of pay for these gen tlemen, but he did think that officers who had served their country so faithfully and so well should have some improve ment in position and in rank. One suggestion was to abo lish the grade of master and require every officer to qualify himself in navigation, However this might be, he hoped the noble lord would do something for the masters of the Royal navy. Lord C. PAGET—In answer to my ben. friend, T may say that the Admiralty are perfectly aware of the great merits of the masters of the Royal navy. Various schemes have been put before the dep rtment and considered with a view to improve their position, and the whole matter was gone through lately with great (are. Among other pro posals, as my hon. friend says, was one to do away with the grade of master, and to merge these officers into com manders and lieutenants. But we found that there was a general feeling adverse to this alteration, and under these circumstances the Admiralty have under consideration a scheme which will not be many weeks before it is out, and which, without doing away with the grade of master, will put these officers into a position commensurate with the honourable and responsible duties which they have to per form. (Hear.) I now turn to the remarks which fell from nay hon. friend the member for Rochdale. lam prepared for an annual scolding from him. It generally comes in the month oUune. This year it has come earlier ; but the sea , son itself is somewhat earlier. (A laugh.) My hon. friend , has spoken of the opinions which I hold. The opini ins" I hold are those which 1 have always held. For a great many years 1 have been of opinion that line-of-battle ships are not vessels destined to play any great part in any future war; and I have stated that opinion in this house. My hon. friend now takes me to task because, bolding thatopinion, I am a member of a Government which has gone on with the construction of line-of-battle ships. Now, let me state in passing, that my hon. friend is utterly and entirely mistaken in his views as to what has been done by the Government in covering wooden ships with plate armour. There were some of those ships in progress of construction which it was thought advisable to cover with armour plates, with the view of giving the country an additional number of armour-clad vessels without so heavy an additional ex pense as we should otherwise have had to incur. I have been trying to discover in the admirable speech of my hon. friend —for every speech he makes in this house is always thrill ing and striking, any recommendation as to how we should improve matters; but I have been trying in vain. Does he want us to reduce the number of men ? After going into a statement of the number of iron-plated ships and ships of the line now in the British navy, he said he did not know what to advise—but then he added, " Reduce your men." He says we might reduce the number of our men because we had 30,000 men in ships which we oould not dare to take into action. This broad statement of my hon. friend was listened to with some surprise in this house, and, no doubt, it will attract considerable attention cut of doors— and I would ask him to be a little more careful before he does make such statements. I understand the doctrine of my hon. friend and of a noble lord in another place to be this—that our iron-plated ships will rot require so many men as the ordinary ships of war ; but my hon. friend is mistaken in supposing that we have 30,000 men in the large vessels to which ho referred. The number in first rates is 1,086; in second rates, 5,790 ; in third rates, 2,300 —giving a total of 9,176, instead of 30,001 (Hear.) And I can t ell the house this;:that whether you have armour-plated ships or ships of another description, the number of men will be very little affected, because the great mass of your men are employed in small ships on distant stations, pro tecting your colonies and looking after your commerce, and therefore what you have in those heavy ships is really a very small portion of the whole number of men employed. (Hear, hear.) But my hon. friend says, " Why do you not take the example of the Americans ?" Now, sir, if my hou. friend knows America as well as he professes to know it, he ought to be perfectly well aware that the Americans were the very last to take up the armour-plated vessels. (Hear, hear.) Instead of being an example to us, the United States resisted the armour-plated vessels ; and it was not till they saw that the South were building them that they com menced to adopt them. (Hear, hear.) It has been said that the Americans never built line-of-battle ships; but they built frigates which were men-of-war in disguise. (Hear.) These ships were called frigates, and the object of so styling them was that in case of war against, say, this country, the Americans might be in a position to say that one of these frigates had been able to cope with a British line of battle THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 6, 186% Ship. (Hear, hear.) That was what they said in former wars. (Hear, hear.) It is not my busitiess to defend the Government in which my hon. friend opposite (Sir J. Pak ington) was at the head of the Admiralty ; but 1 think it right to tell my hon. friend the member for Rochdale that he is under an erroneous impression when he says the com mittee of 1858 did not recommend the construction of large ships. My hon. friend says that committee told you the French were doing nothing, that there was no necessity for exertion on your part, and that if the Government had taken up the ,report of that committee, and acted on it, they would not have put the country to expense. Now, here is a paragraph in that report which states,— " It will be seen that France, since 1852, has increased her steam line-of-battle ships from two to 40, of which there are five building and tout converting, and that that has been effected by the conversion of 26 sailing ships and the building of 14 screw ships. England in the Fame time has increased her line of-battle screw steamers from 17 to 50, of which there are 10 building and seven converting. This has been effected by the conversion of 27 sailing ships and the building of 23 as screw ships." From that statement it appears that while France had in creased the number of her line-of-battle ships from two to 40, England had increased hers from 17 to 50, I ask is that a statement whi2,h would justify any Government in not undertaking the construction of large ships ? (Hear, hear.) But the next paragraph states— " The ad lition, therefore, to the French navy in steam line-of-battle ships, complete, building, and converting, is 38, and of England 32 , since 1852. France has at present fur iron-sided ships (fregates blindees) in course of con struction, as before stated. Th. steam frigates of France, screw and paddle, have been increased from 21 to 46; and England has increased her steam frigates, screw and paddle,. from 23 to 34, and her blockships of 60 guns each from four to nine. It is necessary that we should notice this supe riority in steam frigates on the part of France over Great Britain, which, in the event of hostilities, might form a serious detriment to this country, especially in relation to the interruption of commerce." I say that any Ministry who did not act on that statement, and did not at once set about putting the country in the position she ought to occupy in respect to her navy, would deserve to be sent to the Tower or to that Penitentiary into which my hon. friend wants to put me. (A laugh.) I main tain, therefore, that the Government of that day as well as the present Government were right in making great exer tions towards putting the navy in an efficient state. (Hear, hear.) As to what my hon. friend has said on the subjects of our delay in the adoption of iron-plated vessels, I must remind him that I came down to the house for several years in succession, and lifted my voice in favour of armour plated vessels, but all that time my hon. friend was silent. (Hear, hear.) However, Ido not hesitate to assert that the course taken by the Government, whether the late Go vernment or the present, has on the whole beenj the wisest that could have been adopted for the safety of the country. My honourable friend says that periodical panics occur by which Parliament is frightened out of its propriety, and that, after all, they tarn out to be bugbears. Now, why did not hon. members who now object to what the Govern ment has been doing within the last few years come down to the h use and ask for a statement of the stocks in hand and the vessels which the Admiralty were building? Until I took the liberty of laying on the table an annual statement of your property in ships and of what you were building, there was no detailed information on these points supplied to the house. Why did not my hon. tritnd come down and ask hew we stood ? We never should have had those panics it this statement had been put upon the table, because I be lieve the country would not have been allowed to be so be hindhand as she was in the construction of ships. (Hear.) We were many years in a state of alarm as to the manning of our navy. We had ships in our ports month after month waiting for men, and my right hon. friend opposite only three years ago was obliged to come down to this house and ' propose to offer what to men in the position of sailors is almost a small fortune—a £lO bounty; and now, having got them together, it would be a most unwise thing to dis perse them again. (Hear, hear) The men we have now are almost all continuous service men, and if you were to break faith with them by listening to the startling sugges ' tion of my hon. friend, depend upon it you would never get them back again. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord the ' member for Huntingdon says that the present Govern. ment are not making any experiments with a view to get ting the best armour plates. If he had turned round to my hon. friend the member for Wakefield (Sir J. Hay), he would have told him that we are spending very large sums of money in such experiments. Therefore it is not a just charge to make against the Government. (Hear, hear.) I sincerely trust that the house will not depart from the estimates which we have laid before them. It may be possible in course of time to reduce our force by not filling up vacancies as they occur, but now that we have for the first time got a standing navy, suddenly to make a great reduction in it I am positive would be a most suicidal step. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. PAKINGTON—I hope the house will allow me to occupy its time for a few moments while I reply to the very unexpected attack made upon me by the hon. member for Rochdale. (Hear, hear.) I came down to the house ex pecting to hear one of those verbal duels between the two ends of the party opposite to which we have been accus tomed so often of late to listen, without the slightest idea that my administration of the navy was to be made in detail the object of a violent attack. If the hon. member for Rochdale had given me the slightest notice that he was going to make any reference to my administration I might have had an opportunity of looking at the papers, which would have refreshed my memory. (Hear, hear.) Mr. COBDEN—I beg to remind the right hon. baronet that on the last occasion when the affairs of the navy were being discussed I wrote him a letter fo tell him that I wished him to be in his place as I intended to take notice of matters in which he was concerned. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. PAKlNGTON—Perfectly true, but that was last session. (Hear, hear.) In the session of 1862 the hon. member wrote to me telling me that in bringing forward the subject of the navy he intended to refer to my administra tion, but that is no explanation of his neglect to inform me of his intention on the ,present occasion. (Hear, hear.) He has made a violent attack on my administration of the navy without the slightest notice to me except that which could be gathered from the terms of his notice, and from that I suppose no one could infer more than that he intended to refer to the Navy Estimates of the year and the general conduct of the present Government. (Hear, hear.) I cer tai' ly was surprised to hear the noble lord opposite say that the hon. member had made an admirable speech. I cer tainly cannot agree in the least with that compliment. The hon. member has gained great and well merited reputation. But I have heard him speak several times on naval affairs, including his "admirable speech" of to-night, and, if I might take the liberty of offering him any advice, I should counsel him to avoid the subject altogether. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) I never heard him speak on naval matters without being reminded of the words of the song— "'Tis a pity when charming women Talk of things that they don't understand." (Oh, ch, and cheers.) Unless the hon. member's charge against me is that I and my colleagues did not know in 1858 and 1859 what was not then known to anybody, he really has not made a single reference to my administration which is not totally erroneous and founded in complete misappre hension. In order to make his attack more pungent, I suppose, the hon. member charged me with having boasted in this house of having reconstructed the Navy, and on that he bases an attack on the mode in which I carried it out. I assure the hon. gentleman I never made use of the expres sion" reconstruction of the Navy." (Hear, hear.) The ex pression occurred in the Queen's Speech of 1859—(hear, hear)—and as a member of the Cabinet I am responsible for it—but in order to embitter the attack which he was about to make on my administration the hon. member made it a personal charge against me that I had used that expression boastingly in this house. I never made any such boast, and in the discharge of my duty in this house I always endeavoured not to speak in a boastful spirit. The hon. member says that successive Governments--referring, of course, to the Government which preceded the last—com mitted a great absurdity in going on building the obsolete class of wooden vessels. How did he support that argu ment ? I cannot suppose that he meant anything so absurd or so unjust as to charge Lord Derby's Government with not knowing what nobody knew at that time, that this class of vessels would be subsequently superseded by the dis covery of iron ships, and, therefore, the only way in which 1 can explain the meaning of his accusation is by what he said on the subject of the improvement which had taken place in the construction of shells. But does he really mean gravely to argue in this house that the navy of Eng land was to be withdrawn from the seas because an im provement had taken place in the construction of shells ? His argument really amounts to this—shells have been improved, and to such a point that they will set wooden ships on fire ; therefore, the navy of England ought to have no wooden ships afloat. (Hear, hear.) But at that time nobody had any idea of any other but wooden ships ; we still talked of the " wooden walls of old England ;" armour ships had not yet been tried, and, therefore, to say that we ought not to have gone on sending wooden ships to sea is a charge so unfounded that I don't believe it will re ceive any support either in this house or out of it. The next charge which the hon. gentleman brought against us is equally unfounded, and I put it broadly to the hon. gen tleman that he has no right to make such charges unless he has really taken some trouble to inform himself on the subject. He referred to the Treasury minute to which the noble lord has also referred. The hon. member said that the drawing up of that minute by Lord Derby's Government was a very good party move. I repudiate the charge, and I say that a charge more unfounded was never made. (Hear, hear.) At the time the committee was appointed which drew up that minute, it was a secret committee. It was ap pointed as a mere matter of detail; it was a departmental committee, solely appointed to draw up a report for the in struction of the Government. (Hear, hear.) It was the eeling of the Cabinet that we should not be justified in call ing upo Parliament to vote navy estimates which were of an almost unprecedented character for a time of peace with out the clearest grounds for doing so. In the arduous posi tion of First Lord of the Admiralty I had no time to make inquiry and to draw up the papers which were required,but it was the opinion of Lord Derby's Government that inquiry had better be made into the whole of the circumstances. A paper was drawn up by a committee solely for the guidance of the Government, and I can state broadly to the house that it was never i ntended that paper shou ld go beyond the Cabinet which ord ere d i ts compos i t i on . (Hear, hear.) There ayes not the s li ghtest intention o f ma king it a Par liamentary paper or of making it public, and I ask whether s the hon. gentleman is justified now in saying that it was a good party move. (Hear, hear.) Since the hon. gentle man has spo en I h .ve been able, by the assistance of a friend,to refer to " Hansard," and I can explain to the house how it ultimately became a public paper. ft was in conse quence of one of those motions which my noble friend the present Secretary to the Admiralty was in the habit of making when he sat on this side of the house, and which may acccunt perhaps for the seat which he now occupies. (Cheers.) On the 11th March, 1859,my noble friend brought forward a motion, and to his speech it was necessary for me to reply. "Impressed," I said, "with the deep sense of our responsibility in the proposal which it has become our duty to submit for the increase of the navy, and impressed with the conviction that the house has a right to expect the fullest possible explanations of the rapid increase of late years in the expenditure for the navy, her Majesty's government thought it desirable to appoint a confidential committee, consisting of certain members of the government, in srder to investigate what are the causes of that great increase." The fact of ray using that lan guage very naturally led to the remark from some member that I had referred to a paper which was not in the posses sion of the house. I immediately said that I had no objec tion to make that paper public, and under those circum stances, and those circumstances only, was that memoran dum published, which was made solely for the guidance of the Government; and, so far from being made as a party move or with a party object, was made without any idea that it would ever be laid on the table of the house. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman accused the late Admiralty, as he did the present Admiralty, of building screw line-of-battle ships, and leaving sailing vessels to rot. Twice has he used that expression, and in the interval between the two occa sions he has been guilty of the inconsistency of referring to a number of instances since the year 1850—under the administration of the present Secretary of State for India, under the administration cf the First Lord of the Admi ralty, under Lord Derby's Government, and under the ad ministration of the present First Lord—of sailing vessels being converted into screw ships. The two statements are perfectly inconsistent, because if we were converting sailing vessels into screw ships we were not leaving the sailing ships to rot. We were doing no such thing, and it is one of those misstatements of which the hon. gentle man's speeches on naval affairs are uniformly full. Under Lord Derby's Administration it was our constant and anxious desire to find out what sailing ships could be con verted. As my right hon. friend opposite reminds me,it would have been waste of money to convert many old ships ; but whet e the ships were sound enough,and where the shape was good enough, I believe, under his Administration, and most certainly under mine, those ships were converted into screw ships. The hon. gentleman then went on to refer to the statement which I made and the plan whioh I proposed in 1859, and he used the expression that I began frantically building line-of-battle ships. My fir t impression was that I had not ordered any new line-of-battle ship to be laid down, but I find that I did. In 1858 there were three laid down, but the house will recollect that in the year 1858 line-of-battle ships were the navy of England, and that armour-plated ships had scarcely been thought of. In March, 1859, the Bulwark was laid down, but that was the only new line-of-battle ship which was laid down. The hon. gentleman then went on to Fay that this 'step of mine had led to the waste of £10,000,000. y experience in this house is not very short, and I think in the who e course of it I never heard so wild or so untenable an assertion. I really do not know what it means. The hon. gentleman says this step of mine—the frantically building ships which I did not build and which I never ordered the building ef— has led to the waste of £10,000,000. By whom and in what manner ? I am afraid the hon. gentleman is in this position, that he has rashly and lightly made charges which are utterly unfounded, and which he has no means whatever of substantiating. (Cheers.) "What were the circumstances under which I brought forward the Navy Estimates of 1859 ? Here again, no thanks to the hon. gentleman, sufficient time has elapsed to send for a volume of Hansard. Per haps the house will allow me to read a short extract from my speech of that year :—" I have shown to the committee that while France is nearly upon an equality with us in line-of-battle ships, she now very:decidedly exceeds us in frigates. When we discovered our inferiority the Govern ment felt, and I believe the committee also will feel, that we really had no option but to endeavour as soon as possible to redress that inferiority. Therefore the plan which the Government asks the committee to carry out is this." I then stated the details of the plan. The easiest kind of wise dom is to be wise after the event. It is very easy in 1863 to blame men for not knowing in 1859 what we know in 1863. In 1859 England had never heard of an armour-plated ship. The wisest men only spoke of it as an experiment the success of which was wholly uncertain. But, when we felt it to be our bounden duty to make that anxious experi ment, what were the terms in which I asked the House of Commons to consent to an expenditure for that purpose of £700,000 ? I said, " I shall not conceal from the committee that they will be the most costly ships ever built for the British navy." There was no misleading the house in that. "But, still assuming, as I have no doubt, that our plans will receive the sanction of Parliament, we have resolved to lose no time in building two of these vessels—the Warrior and the Black Prince ; and am bound to say we have also resolved to throw away no chance whatever in endeavouring to make these ships as effective as possible." Such were the spirit and tone in which, in the year 1859, I askedthe House to try the experiment of spending £700,000 on two armour plated ships. But I felt it was an experiment. I felt that no living man could tell us whether the Warrior and Black Prince would be fit to go to sea when they were built. But when that experiment has been successful, when it is found that these ships can go to sea, to come down and blame the Government who made the proposal as an ex periment, and, while it was uncertain, neglected nothing to maintain the wooden navy equal to what we possessed in former years, and adequate for the grandeur of the country, is ungenerous and unworthy of an hon. gen tlemen with the high reputation which attaches to the hon. member for Rochdale. (Cheers.) I am con fident that, be he who he may and sit where he may, every hon. member is anxious to maintain the power of England ; and I feel as confidently as ever that the power of England and the naval power of England are convertible terms; and I say that any Government would be deeply to blame who neglected means within their power to keep the naval power of England in a state of efficiency. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman said I must feel remorse at what I have done. I hope I may never live to feel remorse for anything greater than that which the hon. gentleman supposes I ought to do for the part which I took as a member of Lord Derby's Government in strengthening.theinavy of England. I feel pride in what I did. (Cheers) We may have made mistakes, but we threw away no care, we spared no pains, we took bold steps, we made bold proposals, and happily, though the result was uncertain et the moment, those pro posals have turned out successfully. lam free to say,there fore, as far as I am concerned, that a more unfounded at tack was never made than that to which I was exposed by the hon. gentleman to-night, and, instead of feeling remorse as long as I live I shall reflect with pride and satisfaction on the part I took in 1858-59, (Cheers.) Sir M. PETO held that several of the arguments of his hon. friend had not in fact been answered, particularly that in which he showed the impolicy of maintaining, princi pally on distant stations, a force of 106 wooden vessels, not one of which could venture to encounter an iron-clad. (Hear, hear.) With an iron-cased fleet we should require a much smaller number of men. 76,009 seamen had been voted by the house, in addition to a naval reserve of 14,000, a force of 8,000 coast volunteers, and 8,000 coastguardsmen, making a total of 106,000. The number struck him as much in excess of the requirements of the country. (Hear.) During the Crimean war we had not more than 65,000 sea men employed, with a very small reserve; and the Naval Commission only recommended that a force of 56,000 should be kept on foot, with a reserve of 30,000. There were at present in commission 46 ships, carrying 2,600 guns; and taking 12 men to each gun according to the general average, this calculation would give 31,200 men—so that his hon. friend was not far wrong in regard to numbers. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. baronet said that in 1859 England had no idea of such a thing as an armour-plated ship ; but the very minute which had been drawn up for the informa tion of Lord Derby's Government referred to the irresist ible qualities which iron-clads then in course of construction in France were stated to possess. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. PAKINGTON—I said that in 1858 England had no idea of armour-plated vessels ; but I myself proposed the construction of two in 1859. (Hear, hear.) Sir M. PETO proceeded to say that from intelligence which had been communicated regarding the iron-plated vessels now in commission it appeared that in many in stances their plates had grown very loose, a result which might naturally be anticipated from the way in which those plates were hung on the ships' sides and the weather they had gone through since they were commissioned. As the armour-plating of such ships might be taken to cost £lOO,OOO, it was of the utmost importance that a proper system of fastening should be adopted ; and it was but natural that, until the same rigidity could be given to the plating which was common to the rest of the vessel, loose ness and con- equent leakage would take place. He thanked the Government for the statement from Admiral Robinson which had been placed in the hands of members that mo rn• ing, as to the comparative cost an d value of iron and wooden ships. There had been a further pledge on the part of the noble Premier, on which h e for o n e relied implicitly, that the building of the five wooden ships would not b e com menced till the house had expressed its opinion on th e sub ject. All that was now requisite was that th e G overnment s h o uld give theta a mple time for consideration before the discussion took place. Mr. BENTINCK did not propose to take any part in the triangular duel between the hon. member for Rochdale, his n ,ble and gallant friend opposite, and th e r i g h t h on. b art. the member for Droitwich. He cou ld not j o i n i n the l au dation which his noble and gallant friend had passed on the speech of the hon. memb er f or R ochdale, for he must s ay that his noble and gallant friend and the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich had very much the best of the argument. The hon. member for Rochdale was appa rently driving at one object, that of inducing the house to reduce the number of men already voted. But he had been unable to detect any tenable arguments in favour of his sug gestions, and it had been shown that his charges were per fectly unfounded. He could not agree wiih the hon. mem ber in thinking that any argument for reducing the num. ber of seamen was to be found in any forethought shown , by the Northern States of Amer;LT. which appeared to be within a few months, or even weeks, of a ional bank ruptcy. The hon. member added that the Admiralty we., an old offender, and that he objected to the constitution of the Board. It was very remarkable that this question hed beet again and again brought before the house and yet this was the first time the lu.n. member for Rochdale had up lifted his voice against the constitution of the Board of Ad miralty. The hon. member charged his right hon. friend (Sir J. Pakington) with having led to a waste of £10,000,000, which by a singular coincidence was about the sum the hon. gentleman had been assisting his right hon. friend the Chan cellor of the Exchequer in wasting during the last five or six years. (A laugh.) Some hon. members opposite had given the house the result of their observe ions in regard to what was doing in the French dockyards. He also had visited all the French dockyards, and he defied any one to see what was going on there without feeling that any Government in this country that neglected to maintain the English navy in the highest state of efficiency would deserve to be sent to Tower hill. The hon. member complained that the noble lord at the head of the Government had told the house that the state of the French navy was such as to rends_ r it incum bent on the House of Commons to vote money in order to place the navy in a more efficient state. But that speech of the noble viscount's was re-echoed not only by this house but by the country, and if anything had contributed to what he would call the well deserved popularity of the noble viscount it was his determination to maintain the naval defences of the country. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Rochdale corap!ained thr.t the Admiralty were maintaining 20,000 men in useless ships. The Secretary to the Admiralty had upset this argument to the extent of two-thirds, by showing that only 9,000 sailors were employed in the classof ships alluded to. Did the hon. member mean that these 9,000 men were to be dismissed the service until the Admi ralty had got iron sheathed vessels in which to employ all the men voted in the estimates ? Did he propose that until that time arrived we were to have no ships on foreign sta tions, and take no thought for the protection of our foreign commerce? Or did the hon. member think he could makea sailor in a day, or a month, or a year P Would he cut them adrift because he had not got iron ships to put them into) and then when the ships were ready would he expect to get them back again ? This was the baneful system of which the hon, member and his friends were the promoters, He would dismiss seamen to-day, and then when he wanted them to-morrow they would cost him 12 times as much. The hon. member's cry for economy always came a day after the fair, for he never warned the country against the extrava gance of the Administration until the Estimates had been voted. The hon. member then, resorting to his old platform rhetoric, asked if they were doiegjustice to their constituents by voting these large sums. But had it ever occurred to the hon. member that the very existence of British commerce depended on the supremacy of the British navy P (Hear, hear.) The hon, member was quite mistaken in supposing that hon. members connected with the agricultural districts were intent on maintaining taxation at the highest possible point. On the contrary, there was no class who would more gladly join him in diminishing the expenditure if it cola' be done without impairing the efficiency of the national ser vices. But the worst of all economy was that which was always reducing to-day in order to increase to-morrow. It was because they dreaded the economy which the hon. gentleman recommended, and looked upon it as a source of extravagance that they deprecat, d his suggestions. (Hear.) The hon. member for Finsbury had stated that the number of men employed in the Crimean war was much less than the number of men now employed, including the Naval Re. serve. Bat he (Mr. Bentinck) differed entirely from the bon. baronet in the conclusion which he would draw from that circumstance. For what would have been the conse quence had we had the same number of men employed dur ing the Crimean war that we have now ? if we could at that time have manned such a fleet as we could now the Russian war would have been brought to an end in three months without the loss of a man. (Laughter.) Did hon. members doubt the fact ? If, instead of playing with block ades, we had really blockaded the Russian ports Russia could not have attempted to continue the war. The sham blockade which we carried on during the Crimean war was worth £26,000,000 sterling to Russia, and, in point of fact, left her the means by which she was enabled to carry on the war. The number of our sailors, therefore, so far from being a source of extravagance. was a true economy. He hoped the house would not be induced by the arguments of the hon. member for Rochdale to cut down the number of men which they were asked to furnish to the navy for the coming year. (Hear, hear.) Mr. C. BERKELEY sincerely hoped the Government would not be induced to diminish the number of men. The hon. member for Rochdale was quite mistaken in stating there were 30,000 men employed in useless wooden ships. The facts were these :—There were 14 line-of-battle ships, with an average number of 800 men, making in all 11,200. Then there were nine block ships, but the whole of them, he believed, with short complements, not exceeding 400 men each, which would make a total of 3,600 in those ships. Then there were 23 frigates, with an average crew of 300 each, making 6,900. Therefore the total number of men employed in these 46 vessels was about 21,700, not includ ing the crews of iron vessels. (Hear, hear.) Sir C. WOOD—I wish to make a few observations before this debate comes to a close. I cannot help thinking that the hon. member for Rochdale has made certain assump tions in which he was not warranted by the state of our navy for many years past. The house and the country must be perfectly well aware that the navy has for many years been in a complete state of transition. Changes have been made not only in the construction of our ships but in the mode of propelling and arming them, and so rapidly have these changes followed one after the other that before one set of vessels were completed some alterations and improve • ments have been introduced which rendered it necessary to build others of a different kind. It is not so many years since the main part of our navy consisted of paddle ships, and when the screw was introduced a large sum of money was required in order to make the screw applicable to large vessels, to which it was found that the screw could with great advantage be applied. A screw fleet therefore superseded to a great extent the paddlewheel steamers of our old navy. I do not agree with the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) in what he said about blockading the Russian ports. For we did blockade the Russian ports in the early part of the Crimean war. In many of •ur ports there were not squadrons of ships sufficient to protect our trade against Russian cruisers, but the fleet we had in the Sound prevented Russian vessels from coming out, and was a great deal better employed than if it was scattered here and there But the circumstances of the Russian war rendered it neces sary to build a description of vessels which did not before exist, and during the greater part of the time that I wa- First Lord we were engaged in building those vessels. In the three years during which I had the honour to be First Lard we added to the fleet of England 20 line-of-battle ships and frigates and 230 corvettes and small vessels, in eluding 8 iron plated floating batteries and about 100 mortar boats. The right hon. gentleman (Sir J Pakington) when he came to the Admiralty set about converting such wooden line•of-battle ships as were fit into screw vessels, at that time the best possible description of ship that could be em ployed in the naval service of the country. (Hear,) I do not believe there was a single vessel converted which was not fit for conversion, and surely it would have been a waste of money to convert vessels which were not of a shape advan tageous for conversion. Now, the French line-of-battle ships were far better adapted for conversion than our own. (Hear, hear.) The question of armour-plated ships was a moot question at the time. We had floating batteries foal we were trying experiments with targets to ascertain the strength of the iron plating that would be required. Towards the end of 1857 we had come pretty well to the conclusion that it would be necessary to tiy vessels of this kind, and I had estimates prepared for the building of an iron• plated ship in 1858. The right hon, gentleman proceeded to say that as a change of Government took place he could not pretend to say why that was not done, but as had been truly stated, in the next year further experiments were made, which led to the then Government making a large vote for the construction of the Warrior and the Black Prince. With reference to the num ber of line-of-battle ships and the number of men engaged for them, he observed that on the Ist Feb. there were 13 line-of-battle ships in commission and their crews amour' ed to 9,176. Another statement had been made to the effect that some iron-plated vessels had come in from sea with the armour-plates shaken and hanging loosely about. The fact was directly the reverse, for the armour was not shaken at all, and any one of the vessels was fit to go to any part of the world. Ho was anxious to make this statement, because the contrary representation was calculated to produce a false impression in reference to the character of armour-plated vessels. Mr. LAIRD rejoiced to hear the contradiction given by the right hon. gentleman to the report respecting the armour-plated vessels. An important paper respecting Lhe cost of iron and wooden ships, signed by Admiral Rovir son, had just been presented to the house, and he hoped tile noble lord at the head of the Government would have a special day set apart for the discussion of the question re specting the building of wooden vessels. Sir C. WOOD said that the pledge given on that subject by his noble friend would be strictly adhered to. No steps would be taken in the matter until that house had an op portunity of expressing an opinion in reference to it ; but if the proposition of the Government to build certain wooden vessels were not sanctioned, a considerable vote would be necessary for iron armour-plated vessels. The house then resolved into committee of supply. NAVY ESTIMATES. The first vote proposed was £133,298 for new works, im provements, and repairs in the yards, &c. Mr. LINDSAY referred to the Parliamentary paper signed by Admiral Robinson, and inquired whether the Government intended to build iron ships at other yards besides Chatham. He considered that the document he had just alluded to cast a most extraordinary reflection on the contract iron shipbuilders of this country. Lord C. PAGET replied that the Government had not in view the creation of another iron shipbuilding establishment. The establishment of naval barracks had been recommended by the Commissioners on Manning the Navy, an d was on all hands admitt e d t o b e o f t h e grea t es t importance. Col. SYKES asked for an explanation of the charge for gas, and asked why the Government did not make their own. After a few words from Mr. JACKSON, Capt. TALBOT called attention to our want of docks and 'basins capable of receiving the largest class of ships, and inquired why so small a sum as only £22,000 was asked for the construction of the basin at Chatham. Mr. WHITE noticed an item of £9,160 for a new esta biim„,:flat at Kowloon, on the coast of China, and asked with what object the works at that place were being under takeri. Mr. CHILDERS desired to know whether the sums in the estimates were all that were to be expended for works at Bermuda and Gibraltar. Lord C. PAGET said the Government were making con' siderable progress in the construction of docks, and at the end of the year we should have four docks capable of re ceiving ships of tha Warrior class. The reason why 0 ° small a sum was taken for Chatham was that it was all that could be expended during the year, The necessary pre liminary works were now being pushed on with all despatch, and next year the Government would no doubt be able to ask for and to spend a much larger sum. When the work was completed the basin at Chatham would be the largest is existence, and would have an extent of 82 acres. The Go vernment had found it more economical to manufacture their own gas, and they adopted that course at all places where they could not obtain it from public companies at reasonable prices. The Government asked this year for no further vote for works at Bermuda, but if the war itt America continued, and we had to keep a large squadron there, it would be absolutely necessary to construct a dock. (Hear, hear.) Alt that it was at present proposed to do at Gibraltar was to carry out the superstructure of the mole to the present length of the foundations, about 600 feet' Many persons thought that it would ba desirable to extend - it to a length of 1,000 feet, in order that very long vessels might lie alongside it to coal, but upon that subject he was not at present prepared to express any opinion. The esta blishment at Kowloon was intended for a coaling station, The situation was, owing to the depth of water, admirably adapted for that purpose. Admiral Sir James Hope, wbo had lately returned from his glorious campaign in China, had very strongly pressed upon the Government that the completion of this work ought not to be delayed. Colonel SYKES asked for an explanation of an item of £8,0.0 for the breakwater at Plymouth, Lord C. I'AGET replied that during the last few Yea" this breakwater had given way, and it had been necessa r y to undertake very considerable works for "towing" it. Mr. A ODIN GTON asked whether the dockyard at Malta was capable of admitting vessels of the Warrior class. Lord H. LENNOX said he could take it upon him to 80 that the hon. gentleman might with safety vote the aura proposed for the dockyard. Up to the present time Malta possessed no dock capable of containing any ship but one of the smallest class, but means had since been devised for the construction of a dock which would admit ten vessels as large as the Warrior, and be of the utmost use as a reader vous for the Mediterranean fleet in the event of war. Captain TALBOT said that he had heard that the dock was two miles from the dockyard. He was glad, however, that a large dock was being constructed at Malta, because he had heard that the French were building at Marseilles one of a very extensive character, capable of taking in th e largest ships in all states of the tide. Lord C. PAGET observed that the colonial Governmen t had just agreed to give up for the accommodation of men -of • war a part of the island called the French Creek, which WO surrounded with houses, and that in order to construct dock there it would be necessary to purchase those houses, at considerable expense, while the creek itself was so shal low that itwould require to be deepened considerably before a man-of-war could enter it. It was, however, convenien t to the dockyard, and a dock made there would be very con' venient for the purposes of the navy. The construction of such a dock would at the same time, for the reasons which he had just indicated, occasion great delay and expense, en d the Government of Malta had under these circumstance s pr ;posed to contribute a certain sum towards the construe' tion of a dock, capable of containing vessels of the War rior class, at the head of the grand harbour, which was tt °t two miles, but only a half mile, from the dockyard, bu t which undoubtedly was not quite so convenient as the PO he had just mentioned. It had, therefore, been deemed the wiser course to proceed with the building of a dock at the head of the grand harbour, but hereafter the French Creel would no doubt be found available for the purpose, if it were deemed expedient to make it so. There would be n ° difficulty, he might add, in rendering the site at p r esent chosen capable of admitting ships of the largest class. Captain TALBOT wished to know whether the amount of the sum contributed by the Maltese Government was t° be made contingent on the site selected; also what woul d be the depth of water in the new dock when built, Lord C. PAGET said the Maltese Government would 1 0 contribute unless the particular site in question were chosen. There would, he was happy to say, be ample water in the dock, the depth being some 27 feet or 28 feet over the sill' _ _ _ Sir G. BOWYER asked how it was that the Maltese Cie' vernment had agreed to contribute to the construction of a dock which could not in the slightest degree tend to the advantage of the commerce of the island P If he were told that the Maltese Council had consented to disburse a ce" tain sum for the purpose he would simply observe that th e elected members of the Council were in a minority, the majority being composed of official persons. Mr. LAIRD thought it would be well that it should be ascertained beforehand that the dock would p osses s the necessary depth of water. Lord C. PAGET said there was every reason to be safe fled such would be the case. It was quite true that the Maltese Government was to contribute a portion of the cost of the new harbour works, but these works would be a greet benefit not merely to the navy but to the general trade of the port, which he was glad to say was increasing 0 1 ° 11 day. (Hear, hear.) Lord H. LENNOX said the Maltese Government agree d to pay a portion of the expense in order to induce the Irar rial Government to undertake the dredging of the new an, chorage ground, which was very much wanted. Mr. BENTINCK thought the people of Malta had mad e a very good bargain, as the improvements in the harbou r wonld bring them a great deal of business. Mr. LINDSAY suggested that, instead of housing naval reserves in barracks, they should be placed on Wu . ' of some of the wooden ships which were lying idle, and that a number of the officers, tor whom there was such difficul t / in finding employment, should be attached to these vessels' The vote was agreed to, as were also the following £66,000 for medicines and medical stores; £99,370 for nii° - cellaneous services; £719,341 for half-pay, reserved hal f. pay, and retired pay to officers of the navy and royal W l ' rives; £183,10 for military pensions and allowance s ' £194,93, for civil p , nsions and allowances; £270,16 0 fo r rhe army department (conveyance of troops). The whole of the navy estimates having been passed the house resumed amid some cheering. TOBACCO DUTIES BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER move d that the house should go into committee pro forma for the purpose t f introducing certain resolutions as to drawback 6 and he also gave notice that to-morrow he should ask t ° set up a committee to consider a resolution that in future the duty on unmanufactured tobacco imported into Great Britain and Ireland, and containin g l ess th an 10 per Cen' 4 ' of moisture, should pay a d u t y o f 3 s. i nstea d of 3 s. Bud w per cent. MALT DUTY BILL This bill passed through committee. UNION RELIEF AID ACT (1862) CONTINUANGS BILL. This bill was read a third time. POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS BILL. After some discussion on the new clauses and regulations introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this bill passed through committee. The bill will be reprinted as s whole, and considered on a future day. MARRIAGES, &c. (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. VANCE (in the absence of his colleague, Sir r" Grogan) moved the second reading of this bill, and eV pleined some of its leading provisions. - Sir R. PEEL. after pointing out several matters con' nmed Rith its details in relation to the present laws, 013. jec;,ed to clauses 15 and 16, which, he said, had no reference to the su'ujEct, and in committee he should object to thetn• Clause 2, iccuiring notice, was also very objectionable. 11/ addi,'cn to their names, residences, &I, persons intendivg to many were to state the church or chapel they usunlJl attended. That was introducing a novel principle, whic,lla he thought the house would not assent to. Clause 12, saki., vitiated the bill, and must be materially altered. urge ex:a:ing state of the law in Ireland relative to Dissented required cor eideratien. He offerers no objection to the sec° reading, but should oppose the clauses he had referred to i° conami.tee. Mr. EL TT d'd not oppose the second reading of the but took exception to its details. 11ir. LGNGFIELD supported the second reading of th e bill. Afar some remarks from Captain JERVIS, and Sir CROCAN, the introducer of the measure, The bill was read a second time, F EGISTER OF VOTERS BILL. This bill was read a thiid time and passed. SALE OF HARES IN IRELAND, On the motion of Dlr. HASSARD, leave was given t ° introduce a bill to amend the laws re g ul ating the sale °i hares in Ireland. BURIALS IN ENGLAND AND 11 ALES. Sir N. PETO obtained leave in committee of the viii °je house to bring in a bill to make further provision with spect to burials in England and Wales, which was subse' quently read a first time. The house then adjourned at 25 minutes to 11. • {A DVE RTISEM , ENT.I—HoIIoway's Pill s. —Sh a tt e red 0 0 st i tut i on s.—Notuing could have proved more benefic ia l It' restoring weak and enervated frames to a more robust so'' than , t h es e purifying Pill s , w hi c h strike at the root o f P re d m ature senescence, and renew both natural vigour a ? r , strength. Holloway's Pills so thoroughly cleanse the,`,"b ciliation that they necessarily eradicate all diseases vil t - ev , result from removable causes. They may always be ta • with immediate advantage in indigestion, loss of aPP eti - t .r e : sick headache, palpitation, biliousness, heartburn, gatulelluti;, and habitual costiveness. This fine medicine renews bea l ,„ o confidence, and good humour. In cases where the Iler o ' oo have been shaken by long continued illness, nothing e°,t t a overcomes the affliction as these tonic Pills, which ex." remarkably calming and sedative influence. London: Printed and Published by WILLIAM ANDIt W i , of \o. 112, Strand, Printer, at TUL Sufi Office. No' • 0 . Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County 1111ddlesex,—Friday. March 6, 1863. 42 ce11 3 ( Pelitler chloge. N.ll tor the the par —_____ T St. j ai tielrrt out th dlarge, The ppri, ?AR, ..de. iotii, road a The After? ..........__ EC TVE Gtx k iN I% p 6, 21st d l IrPoi To c 7 As 1 Hire e * AI .00iet r Utpt The t hlx In ‘ stit .ahre, Di u -- nav e E ng 1c