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

by the Northern States of Amer;LT. which appeared to be
within a few months, or even weeks, of a
ional bank-
ruptcy. The hon. member added that the Admiralty we.,
an old offender, and that he objected to the constitution of
the Board. It was very remarkable that this question hed
beet again and again brought before the house and yet this
was the first time the lu.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.
gentleman 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 rends_ 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 corap!ained 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 classof
ships alluded to. Did 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 P 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 cost 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 doiegjustice 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 P (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
point. On the contrary, there was no class who would more
gladly join him in diminishing the expenditure if it cola' 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 deprecat, d his suggestions. (Hear.)
The hon. member for Finsbury had stated that the number
of men employed in the Crimean war was much less than
the number of men now employed, including the Naval Re.
serve. Bat he (Mr. Bentinck) differed entirely from the

bon. 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 continue 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 was found that the screw could with great
advantage be applied. A screw fleet therefore 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 did not before
exist, and during the greater part of the time that I wa-
First Lord we were engaged in building those vessels. In
the three years during which I had the honour to be First
Lard 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 (Sir J Pakington) 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 believe 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 foal
we were trying experiments with targets to ascertain the
strength of the iron plating that would be required.
Towards the end of 1857 we had come pretty well
to the conclusion that it would be necessary to tiy
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 amour' ed
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 reference 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 Lhe
cost of iron and wooden ships, signed by Admiral Rovir-
son, had just been presented to the house, and he hoped tile
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 vessels.

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-
provements, and repairs in the yards, &c.
Mr. LINDSAY 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
'basins capable of receiving the largest class of ships, and