The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-27 00:00:00

rHE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 27, 1863.

no more than a mere estimate, and consequently delusive
and fallacious.
Mr. LINDSAY said he should move that the chairman
report progress until they had all the items before them.

Mr. LAIRD would support the statement of the hon.
member for Finsbury. Ho had been connected with a
large engineering and ship-building firm for thirty years,
and they always found an opportunity about Christmas
for taking stock. He was sure that in a week or ten days
the same thing could be done in the dockyards.
The motion for reporting progress was then withdrawn.
Mr. AYRTON did not wish it to go forth that the ac-
counts in the dockyards were not well and accurately kept.
He had vi, ited one dockyard and inspected the accounts,
and he thought nothing could be more full and accurate
than the manner in which they were kept.

After a few words from Lord LOVAINE and Mr. LIND-
SAY,

Lord C. PAGET informed the committee that the ac-
counts were now being kept by double entry, and would be
shortly laid before them in that form. At present it was the
practice to take stock triennially ; it would lso for the house
to determine whether in future it should be done annually.
Mr. G. BENTINCK contended that the Admiralty
should do that which was the invariable practice of every
mercantile firm, namely, take stock at the end of each year.
The vote was then agreed to.
The vote of £69,957 for wages of artificers, &c., employed
in her Majesty's establishments abroad was agreed to.
On the vote of £1,334,051 for naval stores for the build-
ing, repair, and ow fit of the fleet, steam machinery, and
ships built by contract,
Sir M. PETO mov€d that the sum of £266,663 for timber,
masts, deals, &c., should be reduced by £250,000, on the
ground, first, that it was not required, and secondly, that
the Government had already improperly appropriated that
amount from votes destined for another purpose. He con-
tended that it was unconstitutional to appropriate a sum oj
money for other purposes other than that voted. It was
useless for the committee to deliberate upon these estimates
if the will of the Admiralty was to set their decisions aside.
It was a want of good faith towards the committee.

Lord C. PAGET said this sum was for contracts en-
tered into two or three years ago. They were obliged
ro take their contracts iu advance, or they would never
get the timber they required. When these contracts were
entered into fault was found with the Government for
not having a large stock of timber on hand. He took
credit for having so large a stock of good seasoned timber.
Mr. LINDSAY said the noble lord had not answered
the question whether the First Lord was to over-ride the
decision of the Committee.
Lord C. PAGET said the Duke of Somerset had divided
the vote into two sections to prevent the Admiralty from
applying money voted for the second to the first section.
Formerly it was all one vote. It was considered the depart-
ment had the right to appropriate one sum to another in the
same department, provided the original amount was not ex-
ceeded. That would not be the case in future with regard
to the timber vote.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said it was the alteration that
had been made in the Appropriation Act that was at the
root of the evil. In future unapplied votes would have to
be surrendered to the Treasury.
Mr. LAIRD said the Government ought to decide what
ships should be constructed, and stop the others. The Ad-
miralty would do well to consider the subject. Timber was
always valuable, and if it was not wanted it could, be sold.
In answer to a question from an hone. member,
Lord C. PAGET said the timber was contracted for in
1861.

The amendment was negatived without a division.

Mr. LINDSAY asked for the amount of the tonnage of
the iron-plated ships now under construction to be ready
in April, and also the number and tonnage of such ships
now being constructed by France. For that purpose he
moved that the chairman report progpess,

The committee divided. The numbers were—
For reporting progress
Against it
Majority —6l

Mr. LINDSAY wished to know whether the house would
have the information in detail upon the vote before the re-
port would be brought up.
Lord C. PAGET said that the details would be laid upon
the table in the course of ten days or so, but not before the
report would be brought up.
Sir J. PAKINGTON asked whether the Admiralty in-
tended to persist in putting iron plates on wooden vessels ?
Lord C. PAGET replied in the affirmative.
A long discussion ensued, in which Sir J. Hay, Lord Pal-
merston, Sir J. Pakington, Mr. Laird, and Mr. Lindsay
took part.
Mr. LINDSAY moved that the vote be reduced by
£134,000, which was about the sum set down for iron plates
for the five wooden ships which the noble lord (C. Paget)
said the Admiralty intended to build.
Lord PALMERSTON said that the motion would pre-
vent them from having any plates for either wooden or iron
ships.

A discussion took place, in which a great many members
from both sides of the house urged the Government either
to withdraw the vote altogether, or, at all events, to post-
pone it for tiw prcaont.

- Lord PALMERSTON then rose and said that the best
arrangement would be to submit a statement to the house,
no steps being in the meantime taken with regard to these
five ships—(hear)—showing what time would be required to
complete them, and what would be the cost; showing also
what would be the cost and time of building the five ships
proposed by the Admiralty. The house would then be able to
judge whether it would prefer the longer time and the greater
expense, or the shorter time and the lesser ex-
pense. But that was not the real question in-
volved in the present vote, which was to provide armour
plates for ships already built and ready to receive them.
He hoped, after that explanation, that the hon. gentleman
would not insist on a motion which did not go to the point
he had in view.

Mr. LINDSAY then withdrew his amendment, and the
vote was agreed to.

A vote for -C857,349 for steam machinery was also agreed
to, and the Chairman was ordered to report progress.
The Telegraphs and the Malt Duty Bills were respec-
tively committed pro forma for the introduction of amend-
ments.

POST-OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
BILLS CF EXCHANGE AND NOTES
(METROPOLIS) BILL.

This bill was read a second time,
MARRIAGES REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. MONSELL obtained leave to bring in a bill to pro•
•side the registration of marriages in Ireland.
MARRIAGES (IRELAND) BILL.

On the motion of Sir E. GROGAN, the order for bringing
in a bill in reference to marriages in Ireland was dismissed,
with a view to hia introducing another measure with the
same object.
DISEASES PREVENTION (METROPOLIS).
On the motion of Dr. BRADY, leave was given to intro-
duce a bill to regulate the removal in hired or public car-
riages of persons labouring under infectious diseases in the
metropolis.