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

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 morn•
ing, as to the comparative cost and value of iron and wooden
ships. There had been a further pledge on the part of the
noble Premier, on which he for one relied implicitly, that
the building of the five wooden ships would not be com-
menced till the house had expressed its opinion on the sub-
ject. All that was now requisite was that the Government
should give theta ample 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 the right hon. bart.
the member for Droitwich. He could not join in the
laudation which his noble and gallant friend had passed on
the speech of the hon. member for Rochdale, for he must
say 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 ,