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, which
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 vessels into 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 ships could withstand the legion of gunboats,
'.°Pe, and corvettes which they saw at Spithead last year,"
Ag6in, he recurred to the subject in the same discussion,
stud said
rnntgn
eJided,l his opinion line-of-battle ships were not the instru-
e" by, whiqb in future the fate 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, however, 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 gaininginground in France.
ground in thri;
country, and much more was it gaining
Be had been lately at Paris, and had had conversations
with French officers on the subject ; and, whatever reports
the late First Lord of the Admiralty might have heard re-
specting the French navy, he could give him positive 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
follant admiral the member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier)
that in ten years three-deckers would be unknown, being
cut, down into single-deck ships ; and, holding that opinion,