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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 6, 1863.

the rep ort 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. '1 hey
had left office in 1852. In the interval a Whig Govern-
roz-nt under various heads had held the reins of power.
tord Derty's Government, looking back on those six years,
saw that there had been a very great waste of energy and
capital in our dockyards. It was, no doubt, thought, and
it 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
mhand. There is, first, a minute of Dec. 1, 1858, which
appoints a committee of gentlemen in the Treasury to draw I
up an account of the expenditure on our navy during the I
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 inquire 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, ant
were men quite competent to ant-agate the value of such a
document as that I have here, (Rear, hear.) I must premise
that this report ',vas in the hands of the Government at the
time when the right IP:in, 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
paper 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 hop. 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 .of-war the English navy was scarcely ever 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 had been all the time
building screw line-of-battle ships, and leaving our sailing
vessels to rut in the docks. I may add, parenthetically, as
bearing on matters on welch I can promise that you will
bear 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."
is 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
offender (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 oxceed-
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.si 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 lice-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, and 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 dawn,
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 foi ward the Navy Estimates. i was in
AnAerica. When I came home and found myself a member
this house I took this report, which then lay wait-
for me, but which the right honourable gentleman

y have forgotten, as others seem to have done, and
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
waste of £10,000,000 sterling ; and even that amount, I fear,
is much under the mark. (Hear, bear.) Well, if I tuna
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 naval architecture. I drew inspiration from him, aye, as
long as six years ago. I remember his speeches, how ad-
mirable 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, 1 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 _lto 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-
boat,r carried heavy guns, and he was convinced that no force
large ships could withstand the legion of gunboats
sloo
Pe, and corvettes which they saw at Spithead last year.'
Again, he recurred to the subject in the same discussion,
and said,—
" In his opinion ha' e-of-battle ships were not the instru-
mentq bv which in
ded- future the fate of empires would be
lie added that,—

ti Napoleon had observed that if be could only command
the Channel for 48 hours he would subjugate this country.
He might, however, come to our shores at the present day
with 70 or SO ships of the line, and yet not be enabled to
effect a lending
in the fare of that noble Ilea of small yes-
eels which the First Lord of the Admiralty had given within
the last few years."
Again, on the 12th of April, 18.55, the noble lord reiterated
the same opinions with even still greater confidence. Re
said—
" He believed it to be the opinion the navy that it
of
would be wise to pause in the construction of these enor-
ii,ous vessels. That opinion was gaining ground in this
country, and much more was it gaining ground in France.
lie 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-
el ecting 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
b.- 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
go ilant admiral the member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier)
t h-.t in ten years three-deckers would be nnkmr.vn, being
cat down into single-deck ships; and, holding that cpinion,

he thought it was a wasteful expenditure of the public
money to go on, year by year, constructing that class of
vessels."

(Hear, hear.) That was the noble lord when o tof office ;
and, really, when I think of what he was and what ha is,
it confirms me in the conviction I have long entertained of
the great risk we run in taking teats upon the Treasury
Bench. (Hear, hear, I lid laughter.) "Who can say that
he would be proof against the contagion, or
that he would remain 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 first Estimates he administered to
as Secretary of the Admiralty, because they had been prac-
tically framed and passed uutior the auspices of the right
hon. baronet the ra'draber 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 io 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 bad
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
as the time, but when I read his speech I 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 he 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 expressed 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 fate 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, which, 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 we 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 tons 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
tar as large vessels are concerned, we are in a very satisfac-
tory position," making 50 for all the world against 67 of our
own. (A laugh.) The Duke of Somerset, speaking on the
Ist of Si 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 ship• buildiug
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 1859, 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 br ng back
the assurance that the noble lord's alarms were groundless,
the noble lord only reiterated more and more his vague and
undefined arguments ft a- 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 ot France—ot 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 Prime Minister alwas ii—(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 bad 40 line-of-battle ships built and
building, while my ncble 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 Moody
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-
skin ?arleabue
probablyl es
tviemwaet e havee
am plf
employed
yrb
eoadus t
I04:e
bonard
ad commission,rodfandss
elso,l
ofhave men
in
ttbh those
a numbere vessels,
formedtat
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 tine of war. !venture to
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, with 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.) I am not so technically
informed as to be able to speak of my own knowledge, but I
speak
always from good authority, and I am told that the
discipline and experience which a
oloss are getting on board
these line-of-battle ships is
not m
p ersuchr a s to qualify them for
the duties they would have tts
in case of war in an-
other class of ships. In no point of view can I see that it
is for the interest of the country that these enormous ships i should be kept manned n
way. If they are useless, if
they are dangerous, then, is there not the financial aspect of
the country to be considered ? Is the country in such a state
as to be inclined to look on calmly and contentedly while
this house is worse than wasting millions of money,
ex-
pending it in a manner which imperils our honour and our
safety ? Will that meet the approbation of the country, and
is not something more due to our constituents ? (Rear.)

We have heard what a noble
,lord a Conser4Tati4ie peer in
another place has said. S ha4e read that noble lord's
speeches ',men other occasions, and although upon no 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 she
party of financial reform. We represent generally the trod •
ilia and manufactu ing 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
frugalty 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
I Reform Government and one of retrenchment to bring for-
tward 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 hearts 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 you 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 ves-
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 empl. yed, if at 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 niece 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 make 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 dig 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 considered 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
money 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 uffi,iers 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 hen. friend, I 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 tare. 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•
menders 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 new turn to the remarks which fell from
vny hon. friend the member for Rochdale. I am prepared
for an annual scolding from him. It generally comes in the
month of June. 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 opinions I
hold are those which 1 have always held. For a great many
years 1 have been of opinion that line-of-battle shins 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, holding 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 ho 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 out of doors—
and I would ask him to be a little more careful before he
does make such statements. I understand the doctrine of
many
hon,
nym this—that
u friendoaus andr
the
iro
iron-plated
ordinary
al
a te noblea
ships
hhl
ppr
sds inof
willwar
anothera tr o;t but
u require
e qa
muc
yr
et
ho 0 be
ns o
.
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 30,009. (Hear.) And I
can tell the house this,"that whether you have armour-plated
ships or ships of another description, the number of men
will be very little effected, 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 d o you not
take the example of the Americans ?" Now, sir, if my hon.
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 in disguise. (Hear.)
These ships were called frigates, and the object of so styling
them was that in cue 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

ship. hear.). That Was what they said in former
wars. (Hear, hear.) It is not my business 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 ,arue 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 which would justify any Government in
not undertaking the construction of large ships ? (Hear,
hear.) But the next paragraph states—
" The addition, 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
Lair iron-sided ships (fregates blindees) in course of con-
struction, as before stated. The 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 as 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 been] 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 turn 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 in ships and of what you were building,
there was proasnPoerdteytailed information on these points supplied
to the house. Why did not my hon. friend 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 tor 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 suggess
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 uro spending very large
sums of money in such Experiments. Therefore it is not
a just charge to make against the 6overnment. (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. PARINGTON—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 ray administration I might
have had an opportunity of looking at the papers, which
would have refreshed my memory. (Hear, bear.)
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 to 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
tainly 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 hint 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 chatming 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-
(Hear, hear.) The ex-
Speech of 1859—(hear,
spiroens
s'i'orne cooencsutrrruecdt i o
inn ot fit teh eQNu
ea
evny,.:
hear)—and as a member of the Cabinet I am resuonsible for
it—but in order to embitter the attack which he was about
to make on my administration the bon. 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 dia.
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 nest
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
.reeling of the Cabinet that we should not be justified in call-
nig 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 ot 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
tklat it was never intended that paper should go beyond the
Cabinet which ordered its composition. (Hear, hear.)
There was not the slightest intention of making it a Par-
liamentary paper or of making it public, and I ask whether

the hon. gentleman is justified now in saying that it was a
good party male.. (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. It 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 account 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 b was necessary for me
to reply. " Impressed," I said, " with the deep sense of
our responsibility in the proposal which it has became
our duty to submit for the increase of the naSyi 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 order to investigate what are the causes
of that great increase." The fact of my 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
where 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 which 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 say that this *step of mine
had led to the waste of .C 10,000,000. rr 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 of—
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 nave 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." 1
then stated the details of the lan. The easiest kind of wis •
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 asked the 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 tha:navy 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 at the moment, those pro-
posals have turned out successfully. I am free to eay,there-
fore, as far as I am concerned, that a more unfounded at-
oink 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 Dl. PETO held that several of the arguments of his
hon. friend had not in fact been answered, particularly that
iu 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 au iron-clad.
(ricer, hear.) With an iron-cased fleet we should require a
much smaller number of men. 76,000 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 wore 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 consequent 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 bad expressed its opinion on the sub-
ject. All that was now requisite was that the Government
should give them 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
noble 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 at gument. 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-
tectly unfounded. He could not agree with 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 America, which appeared to be
within a few months, or even weeks, of a national bank-
ruptcy. The hon. member added that the Admiralty was
an old offender, and that he objected to the constitution of
the Board. It was very remarkable that this question had
been again and again brought before the house and yet this
was the first time the ht.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.
gentlemen 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 rend ,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 complained 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 class of
ships alluded to. D d 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 ? 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 coat 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 doivgjustice 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? (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
eoint. On the contrary, there was no class who would more
gladly join him in diminishing the expenditure if it could 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 deprecated his suggestions. (Hear.)
The hon. member for Finsbury had stated that the number
of men employed in the Crimean war wes much less than
the number of men now employed, including the Naval Re-
serve Bat ho (Mr. Bentinek) differed entirely from the
non. 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 contieue 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 wag found that the screw could with great
advantage be applied. A screw fleet thereto' e 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 dyl not before
exist, and during the greater part of the time that I was
First Lord we were engaged in building those vessels. In
the three years during which I had the honour to be First
Lord 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 (Si' J Pakiugton) 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 be, hive 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 at d
we were trying experiments with targets to ascertain the
strength of the iron plating that would be required.
Towards tha end of 1857 we had come pretty well
to the conclusion that it would be necessary to try
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 amounted
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 reverence 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 the
cost of iron and wooden ships, signed by Admiral Robin-
son, had just been presented to the house, and he hoped the
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 ♦essels.
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-
provemer, ts, and repairs in the yards, &c.

Mr. L i NDS AY 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, and was on
all hands admitted to be of the greatest 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
4 basins capable of receiving the largest class of ships, and

inquired why so small a sum as only £22,000 was ast

the construction of the basin at Chatham.
Mr. WHITE noticed an item of £9,160 for a new t. 'sta"
blishment at Kowloon, on the coast of China, and asiwa
with what object the work?, 9.t that place were being unde.r"
taken.

Mr. CIIILDERS desired to know whether the sums im
the estimates were all that were to be expended for works.
at Bermuda and Gibraltar.
Lord C. PA GET said the Government were making con-
siderable progress in the construction of docks, and at the
end of the yeas we should have tour docks capable of re-
ceiving ships of tin Warrior class. The reason why so
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 pu-hed 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 in
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 na
further vote for works at Bermuda, but if the war in
America continued, and wo 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 lengtZt of the foundations, about 600 feet.
Many persons thought that it would be 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. PAGET replied that during the last few years
this breakwater had given way, and it had been necessary
to undertake very considerable works for "towing" it.
Mr. A DDINGTON 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 say
that the hon. gentleman might with safety vote the sum
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 rendez-
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 the
largest ships in all states of the tide.

Lord C. PAGET observed that the colonial Government
had just agreed to give up for the accommodation of mesa.-of •
war a part of the island called the French Creek, which was
surrounded with houses, and that in order to construct s
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, convenient
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, and
the Government of Malta had under these circumstances
proposed to contribute a certain sum towards the construc-
tion of a dock, capable of containing vessels of the War-
rior class, at the head of the grand harbour, which was not
two miles, but only a half mile, from the dockyard, but
which undoubtedly was not quite so convenient as the place
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 Creek
would no doubt be found available for the purpose, if it
were deemed expedient to make it so. There would be no
difficulty, he might add, in rendering the site at present
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 to
be made contingent on the site selected ; also what would
be the depth of water in the new dock when built.
Lord C. PAGET said the Maltese Government would not
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 itwas that the Maltese Go-
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 ? If he were told
that the Maltese Council had consented to disburse a cer-
tain sum for the purpose he would simply observe that the
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 possess the
necessary depth of water.
Lord C. PAGET said there was every reason to be satis-
fied 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 great
benefit not merely to the navy but to the general trade of
the port, which he was glad to say was increasing every
day. (Hear, hear.)
Lord IL LENNOX said the Maltese Government agreed
to pay a portion of the expense in order to induce the Impe-
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 made
a very good bargain, as the improvements in the harbour
would bring them a great deal of business.

Mr. LINDSAY suggested that, instead of housing the
naval reserves in barracks, they should be placed on bcard
of some of the wooden ships which were lying idle, and that
a number of the officers, for whom there was such difficulty
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 mis-
cellaneous services; £719,341 for half-pay, reserved half-
pay, and retired pay to officers of the navy and royal ma-
rines; £483,10) for military pensions and allowances;
£194,932 for civil pensions and allowances; £270,150 for
the 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 moved
that the house should go into committee pro forma for the
purpose f introducing certain resolutions as to drawbacks,
and he also gave notice that to-morrow he showd ask to
set up a committee to consider a resolution that in future
the duty on unmanufactured tobacco imported into Great
Britain and Ireland, and containing less than 10 per cent.
of moisture, should pay a duty of 3s. instead of 3s. and 6
per cent.