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

he thought it was a wasteful expenditure of the public
vesselsy to go on, year by year, constructing 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
great 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 present time. Well, the French were ac-
cused by the right hon. baronet (Sir J.Pakington) in 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 there 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 authority, and I am told that the
ditthhaeeesidepluitiinineenatandeyeaperience which sailors are getting on board
e-ot-battle ships is not such as to qualify them for
rme see i
st
would have to perform in case of war in an-
other class
inotferßehait" 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, then,f are useless,s ti
state
there not the financial aspect of
the country to be considereaee I they country
as to be inclined to look on calmly and contentedly whilethis
ho
use is worse than wasting millions
of m
onev, ex-
pg it in a manner which imperils 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