The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-10 00:00:00

LORDS

Mr. D. GRIFFITH asked the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer whether be had been correctly understood to
mean that the. House of Lords claim the privilege of grant-
ing pensions out of the public money to their nwn officers,
as of their own authority, &-c.?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that it was not usual for this house to make any inquiry
into the remuneration of the officers of the other house. It
appeared that the House of Lords had a fund called a fee
feud at their disposal, out of which they paid some
of their officers, but with regard to the House of Conimons,
when they were in want of funda this appeared in the votes.
For some years no demand was made on- this house, and
that he believed would be the case "this session.
THE RIVEIt PLATE,,

Mr. MAGUIRE asked the First Lord of the Treasury
whether ho had any objection to state to the, house the sub-
stance of the information received by the English packet as
to the condition of affairs in the River Plate; and whetherin-
structions had been given to the British Minister and Ad-
miral to prevent a recurrence at Montevideo of a similarly
dtplorable sacrifice of life and property by the Brazilians
and insnrgeut forces, as the Under Secretary of State
lately mentioned had been occasioned at Paysandu, by
the same invaders of the Republic of Uruguay.
Lord PALMERSTON sail that the British Admiral in
command- at Montevideo had remonstrated with
the authorities at Brazil, and suggested means for
the protection of the property of the English, and other
foreigners residing there. lie was sorry to say that the
war that was going on in the country referred to was car-
ried on in a manner that was very repugnant to the feel-
ings of European countries ; but the Government did not
propose to interfere further than in regard to the protec-
tion of property.
THE CONFEDERATE CRUISERS.

Lord It. CECIL asked whether any communications had
been received at the Foreign-office from the American
Government demanding compensation for losses occa-
sioned to citizens of the United States by the operations
of the Alabama or other vessels commissioned by the Go-
vernment of the Confederate States, &c.
Mr. LAYARD said that no such communications had
been received.
Mr. BRIGHT enquired if there were any claims made
against the American Government for compensation on the
part of Englishmen for injuries which they had sustained
during the present war.

Mr. LAYARD answered in the affirmative.
NEW WRIT.

On the motion of Col. TAYLOR, a new writ was ordered
to issue for the election of a member for the southern divi-
sion of Wilts, vacant by the resignation of Mr. Sothoron
Estcourt, through illness.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
iyll house went into committee of supply.
On e
the first vote for making up the complement of men
forstihremse. rvpzieeToof the nary,
last Monday. irlasumed the debate which was adjourned
Clarence )
had
that the noble lord (Lord
Paget
more ample info •
ti afforded. honourable members
predecessors,
in regard to naval matters
than some of his
but at the same time he did
not consider he had suooesZ'
contenddm'edrendering his information
quite intelligible. Ile
a state of efficiency, and referred tthoaatßtc!rr'enaurZwwhasiehnowt was
hioubte
and hrtee adverted also to
left without dock accommwtiet
Leitodisywraere not in a
Sheerness and Chatham,
1 Sovereign;
satisfactory condition. He referred to
vthe
serious
eon_
the Royal Alfred, and some other
structed. Ho thought it had become a veryclues-
tion how far it was desirable to carry out the su,-st
fortification beyond the extent the house had salenl I
sanctioned. The expenas of supplying ordnance foread-
armies of the forts under course of construction would
amount amount to £17,624,304. (Hear, hear.) He called the
attention of the house to the decision in the case of the
Queen v. Fennell, in which the mind of the Lord Chief
Justice was satisfied as to the right of the Government to
plead the Royal prerogative in regard to the invention of
Mr. Fennell. He thought it was most unfair to in-
ventors to press the Royal prerogative, the effect
of which might be to induce them to offer

their inventions to the Governments of either countries,
where they would be rewarded for them if they were ap-
proved. He referred to certain competent author I ties to show
that in adopting new inventions the administr of naval
affairs was defective, and that in many instanc3s the conduct
of the Admiralty was most reprehensible. T ae Admiralty was
slow in adopting those inventions, and t k ought to have
a scientific board to decide on their merits without leaving
them to be determined by any naval authority, however
eminent. He denied that there was any false economy
on the part of the house in voting estimates for
the purposes of the navy, for during the last five years
they had voted £58,000,000, and they were entitled to be
satisfied that the navy was not in a state of efficiency. He
gave, from reliable information, a description of the Ame-
rican Federal Monitors, and suggested the lessons that
might be learnt from the construction, armament, and fate
of Fort Fisher. He complained of the want of attention
on the part of Boards of Admiralty, as at present consti-
tuted, to inventors, mentioning instances ; and, in conclu-
sion, observed there never was a time when the state of
our navy more demanded the attention of the Government
and the holm, and vet he could say, without hesitation,
that we had not at this moment a navy sufficient to meet
an emergency.

Admiral WALCOTT dwelt upon the unsatisfactory con-
dition of the navy and the insufficiency of dock accommo-
dation for it, urging that there should be•no stint of mo-
ney to meet their exigencies.
Sir J. HAY said he regretted the reduction of the num-
ber of seamen, and that that of boys trained for the navy
had not more largely increased, and_he was not satisfied
with the reasons assigned for reducing the Coastguard. As
to the armament of our ships the Admiralty ought to make
up their minds as to what they wanted guns to do, and
they would get them. Ships were also built without refe
rence to the service foi which they were intended. He
added his testimony to the character of the Royal Sove-
reign; in spite of blunders, there was no more:efficient ship
afloat. Ho exposed the weakness of our squadrons on fo-
reign stations.

Lord C. PAGET said that, as the speech of the hon.
member for Finsbury had to a great extent reference to the
question of forts and guns, he should defer any reply
thereto until a more fitting occasion. He was anxious
now to answer certain criticisms made with regard to the
construction of our armour-plated fleet. He would state
at the outset that the Government had no desire for any ,
concealment. (Hear, hear.) The only thing which had
displeased him in the speech of the right hon. baronet
(Sir J. Pakington) on Monday night was, that there ap-
peared to lurk in his mind some idea that the Govern-
ment were not going to face the truth. With regard to
the challenge given him to produce officers' confidential
reports, he had always regretted when it had become
his duty to decline to produce the Admiralty reports. But
he warned the house that if it were their pleasure that the
publication of such reports was to become the practice,
then, instead of those reports being as now, minute details
of the opinions of officers fully and frankly given to the
different departments, they would have a system of reports
framed for the purpose of being laid on the table of the
House of Commons, accompanied by private confidential
reports. It was that consideration, and that only, which
had influenced the First Lord to object to produce the re-
ports of their officers. Take, for instance, Admiral Dacres'
report with regard to the armour-plated fleet which he had
been challenged to produce. He (Lord C. Paget) was so
anxious that the opinion of that officer should be made pub-
lic, that he had asked the Duke of Somerset to allow him
to give the pith of his report for the information of the
committee, and he would presently do so. There was a
habit among some hon. gentlemen of getting information,
he did not know from what quarter, with regard to certain
ships and certain events, and then coming down and chal-
lenging him to produce reports. Last year the hon. mem-
ber for Portsmouth (Sir J. Elphinstone) came down to that
house and positively alarmed it by stating that the Research
had gone to try her guns, and that merely firing them had
made her a complete wreck. The question was asked him
(Lord C. Paget), and he had assured the house that there
was no foundation for that statement, except the breaking
of some crockery which had not been put away. The hon.
member then had challenged him to lay on the table the
report of the commander-in-chief. He had objected to do
so, and then the hon. member insinuated to the house that
he had conveyed untrue information to the house. He
then laid the report on the table, and the hon. member had
never since referred to the subject, because the vessel was
perfectly ready at any time to go into action. (Hear, hear.)
With regard to the report of Admiral Dacres, the righthon.
baronet (Sir J. Pakington)received information from certain
officers who liked to gossip about their ships, and who,
above all, loved to cram a landsman. If they gave Admiral
Dacres' report, they ought also to give the report of Admiral
Smart, an equally distinguished officer, who commanded
the channel squadron. His opinion of the Warrior, Black
Prince, Defence, and Resistance was as follows : As re-
garded their sailing qualities, they stood thus: Resistance,
Warrior, Black Prince, and Defence. He begged the hon,
baronet's attention to the fact that the Resistance proved
the fastest ship. The Black Prince was not in quite so
good trim as the Warrior, and the Warrior had some sails
which the Black Prince had not. The result of the report
was that the stability of all the ships was great; their roll-
ing and pitching did not appear to exceed that of a wooden
line-of-battle ship, and that the Resistance, when under
canvas, had a superiority over the larger frigates. Admiral
Dacres reported on the Warrior, the Black Prince, the De-
fence, the Resistance, the Royal Oak, the Prince Consort,
the Research, and the Enterprise. He stated that for long
voyages, or where power to .make rapid passages was of
importance, the Warrior and Black Prince class were un-
rivalled. They even kept pace with vessels of the old class;
their great drawback was extreme length. Even with ex-
perienced officers the risk of taking them into such harbours
as Cork and Lisbon was great. They were dangerous in
scudding. The Warrior, on one occasion, came to nearly
eight points against her helm. In common weather they
were remarkably steady ; but Admiral Dacres did not
think highly of their qualities in a heavy gale. Their want
of buoyancy, even with unprotected ends, was manifest.
Wanting :armour-plates at the water line lessened their
efficiency as fast chasing ships, because they would be ex-
posed to a dangerous fire from slower vessels. They
showed the difficulty of combining fighting qualities with
sea-going qualities, and the House must remember that
they were but a compromise ; and that, to make fighting
vessels sea-going, their ends must bo lightened, and then
their lighting qualities were reduced. Admiral Dacres
stated that he preferred the Defence and Resistance to any
ironclads he had seen. They were the ships that the
right hon. baronet had informed the House could neither
fight nor swim, and were not fit to be sent to sea. (Sir J.
PAKINGTON dissented.) Continuing reading from the report
of Admiral Dacres, the noble lord said, " The Defence had
now been improved in her sailing qualities. She always
had been as handy in.staying and wearing as any one could
desire. She was a safe vessel, and could at all times be
trusted with her serew- hoisted. "Under steam r,he was a
serviceable good vessel, very healthy, but like all fast iron
ships vulnerable at the ends. Her stern and rudder were
exposed." Other nations had adopted the same system of
exposed ends, and why, therefore, were the Admiralty to
be exposed to this extraordinary disapproval for adopting
the same course ? " The Hector and the Valiant were
vessels of peculiar construction, and, from the weight of
armour carried, pitched deeply and sailed badly." Though
in that respect they had been since improved. The Royal
Oak and the Prince 'Consort were the ships of which the
right hon. baronet had said that, if Admiral Dacres' report
was produced, it would be seen that they were totally unfit
for service. Of these ships the admiral reported: " These
ships are invaluable for Channel service as block ships.
Both are handy under sail, and their steaming powers, even
against a moderato sea, are considerable. Like all iron-
clads, they would make bad weather if caught in a heavy
sea in the Atlantic. Plating necessarily rendered them
dark and less healthy than wooden ships." The Research
and the Enterprise were the ships on which the complaints
against Mr. Reed had been founded. Of the Research
Admiral Dacres reported : "This vessel is very much over-
weight,
ni gctihhs t_e_doand, s
heanit.)a_k essi ye ryi; bettodmwf
oerattahbel re wb
ei t hl
oown lyinfrfiesuhe
vir
She
.a
steor,reasndphr7vigsoioond aacncdomstmoroodsawtioolnl,foanrdoffihecrersveanntdilamtieon.n
is excellent." Although it was contrary to precedent, he
would quote a letter which he had that
Imorning received
from the captain of the Research, who vroto as follows
"Asthe Sir
seaworthyJohu Pakingtonqualitiqualities
o fdtehsiisr
ship,t I o knoww will
ray opinion of
give it
fin a few
words, which you are at liberty to make use °
think proper. I do not consider her, in the
old accas°-uta-
you
tion of the words, a wholesome seagoing ship, as compared
with wooden ships ; but at the same time I do notul rcd
gale,
provided con-
siderthat she would be in danger of foundering in a al
provided proper precautions were taken to batten her down,
securely, the means of doing'which I think might be im-
proved." This was a small ship of 1,200 tons, and her
sister ship, the little Enterprise, was under 1,000 tons.
They were built to see how small a vessel could be plated
with safety.. Admiral Dacres, whose report he had been
challenged to produce, said of these ships—" They are the
best ironclads yet built. Vessels of 4,000 tons built on this
plan, with some improvements, awl with the same careful
attention to internal arrangement, would be the safer and
better, for every purpose, than any iron dads we have
afloat." " The Enterprise is entirely plated below the load
water line, and has her batteries covered. She steams and
sails fairly, and is exc,eedingly buoyant and well ventilated.
Her construction is excellent. Her rudder is hidden and
safe, and acts upon the ship remarkably well. A lining of
wood inside her iron skin is required to obviate the incon-
venience of dampness from certain changes of tempera-
ture." This vessel had gone to the Mediterranean, and,
on her passage, had fallen in with very bad weather. The
Research was armour-plated all round and up to the upper
deck. It was therefore necessary that her upper deck
should be as low as possible in order to diminish their
weight. But in doing this it had been necessary to sacrifice
some of her seagoing qualities in order to obtain better pro-
tection. The Enterprise, on the other hand, was only par-
tially plated. She was, therefore, not so well fitted for
fighting, but she was a better sea boat. Both vessels were
adapted for what they were intended—one for coast de-
fence and the other for cruising. But it was said that the
Admiralty dared not
however,
these vessels to sea in bad wea-
ther. It had, always been the habit of the Ad-
miralty, long beforeironclad ships were introduced, to

direct the commanders of their squadrons not to expose
them unnecessarily to bad weather. The right hon. baro-
net (Sir J. Pakington) had condemned in unmeasured
terms the wooden ironcased ships ; but they had been
commenced in consequence of the alarm raised by the
right hon. baronet himself a few years ago with respect to
the progress of the French in building armour-plated ves-
sels. They were coming more and more to this, that the
armour plating should be limited in area, but increased in
thickness. It was in order to carry out this principle that
the alterations had recently been made in the Royal Alfred,
and he could assure the house that measures were being
taken to give her the requisite strength. He came now to
Capt. Coles's ship. In the autumn of 1861 Capt. Coles was
desired to prepare drawings for a turrret ship. In those days
Capt. Coles's ship was not a turret but a cupola ship ; and
ho contended that if tho turrets wore made smell at the top
and broad at the base the shot would glance. He soon,
however, found that this would not answer, and ho then
changed his plan to a turret ship. In 1862 he was ordered
to give in a design for a turret ship for coast defence ; and
in conjunction with the Comptroller of the Admiralty he
designed tho Prince Albert. The Admiralty had been
blamed for not allowing Capt. Coles to design a sea-going
turret ship; but, in the first place, Capt. Coles was not a
shipbuilder; and, in the next place, until Capt. Coles last
year invented the tripod mast, it was impossible to have a
sea-going turret ship. He was himself very hopeful of this,
but many practical seamen were sceptical, contending that
if one of the legs of the tripod were shot away, the mast
would come down, and the vessel be left at the mercy of her
antagonist. Then as to the Royal Sovereign, she was built
in consequence of the excitement caused by the engage-
ment between the Merrimac and the Monitor. There was
then a desire to have another turret ship as soon as pos-
sible ; and for that reason they took a wooden ship which
they had building, and converted her as fast as they
could. He utterly denied that there was any indispo-
sition on the part of the Admiralty to adopt the turret
system. On the contrary, they were exceedingly favour-
able to it, and were anxious to got a good sea-going turret
ship as soon as possible. But such ships could not be
turned out rapidly, on account of the time spent in prepar- ,
ing the turret. But the Royal Sovereign had undoubtedly
been a great success; nor had she ever been paid off. He
denied that the efficient men were taken out of the Royal
Sovereign and put into the Victoria. Not more than 60
,men were transferred from one vessel to the other; and
the Royal Sovereign was now attached to the Excellent,
and would be sent to sea again as soon as some repairs had
been made, and some defects which became visible in her
last cruise had been remedied. To no part of the speech j
of the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich (Sir J.
Pakington) had he listened with more pain than to his re-
ference to Mr. Reed. He begged the right hon. baronet to
remember that if Mr. Watts built the Warrior, he also built
the Resistance and the Defence. He willingly allowed
that Mr. Watts was a man of great ability, and it was much
to be regretted that he had been obliged to seek the quiet
of retired life. With respect to Mr. Reed, all he desired to
say then was that since his appointment Mr. Reed had ex-
hibited vast ability, and that he had been as anxious as any
one could be to proceed with the adoption of the turret
principle. It was not fair to criticise Mr. Reed as he had
been criticised. The proper inference from the right hon.
baronet's remarks was, that when he returned to the Ad-
miralty all those gentlemen connected with the building
department who had been displaced would be brought back
again. The subject of patents was a most difficult one to
deal with ; but, at the same time, he could assure the hon.
member for Finsbury (Sir M. Peto) that the board were as
anxious as possible to come to an arrangement with Mr.
Feather. As regarded the case of Captain Crawford,
Captain Schomberg, and the other officers referred to by
the hon. baronet (Sir J. Hay), ho could only say that if the
hon. baronet would pay him a visit at the Admiralty he
should be most happy to go into the whole question with
him. (Hear, hear.)
Colonel SYKES compared the English and French
navies, and showed that the former had a great preponder-
ance over the latter in ships and men.
Mr. LAIRD, in the course of various practical remarks
upon the construction and arming of ships of war, ob-
served that what we wanted in them was great speed and
the power of carrying heavy guns, and believed that
cupola ships might be made to fulfil both requirements.
Mr. SCOURFIELD made a few remarks upon the com-
parative advantages and disadvantages of building ships for
the navy in public and private yards.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY. said he did not quite understand
the Estimates. They professed to show a reduction of
X 316,000, but it really amounted to no more than X 25,000,
obtained by the sacrifice of 1,000 seamen and 1,000 marines.
He thought a saving might have been more advantageously
made in other particulars. He called for explanation of
some of the votes, and complained of the navy accounts,
which left large sums of public money apparently unac-
counted for.

Mr. BENTINCK urged the deficiency of dock accommo-
dation as a reason why the Government should have made
a larger demand on this account. The diminution in the
number of seamen and marines appeared to him unintelli-
gible. It appeared, he said, from the statement of Lord C.
Paget, that the navy of Great Britain consisted of 19 sail of
the line, which bore no proportion to what was considered
no more than sufficient in former years ; and if we were
shortly involved in war, our success would depend entirely
upon maintaining our former superiority at sea.
Mr. STANSFELD said Lord C. Paget had fully justified
the reduction of the number of men ; the only question was
whether it•might not have been carried to a greater extent ;
whether it was not better, under present circumstances, to
take from men and give to ships. He suggested, as worthy
of consideration, whether a saving might not be in a direc-
tion he indicated, and applied to the most rapid construction
of ships. Ho then proceeded to discuss the questions relat-
ing to the construction and arming of our navy. In these
days of transition and invention we ought, ho said, to ask
what was the most advanced problem waiting our solution.
What now was that problem ? It appeared that guns beat
ships, and if this was true, with reference to carrying-mon-
ster guns, we must part with guns, not ships.
Mr. CHILDERS, after detailed explanations in reply to
statements made by Mr. Seely on the object of dockyard
accounts, proceeded to answer objections raised in the
course of the debate, and to give explanations upon points
respecting which further information was required.

Sir J. PAKINGTON said on Monday evening he had
called attention to the state of the-navy and had raised the
important question whether the vast sum of 57 millions of
Money, which they had granted to the Admiralty during
the last five years, had been judiciously expended. To-
night the noble lord haAl given his explanation, and he (Sir
J. Pakington) would have left that explanation to the judg-
ment of the house and of the country were it not that the
noble lord had misinterpreted several portions of his speech.
He would pass by the tone, and would pass on to the sub-
ject, of his noble friend's speech. It was known by this
time that armour covered ships might be built so as to have
speed, and be at the same time seaworthy and unsinkable ;
but the speech of the noble lord went to this—that the
men-of-war which the Admiralty had built possessed none
of those qualities. 'He (Sir J. Pakington) had never stated,
as had been represented by his noble friend, that the De-
fence could neither fight nor swim. What he did tell the
house was this—that in regard to the Defence and Resist-
ance he hail been informed that in building those two vessels
• the Admiralty had disregarded the advice of the Comptrol-
ler and Chief Constructor of the Navy, atad had constructed
those ships according to their own designs ; and the conse-
quence was, that if those vessels went into action and were
tgoe alto-
gether. s't a
htth;e
nnoolb.lehalodrdhohagdivmenadaeonyorie•epil)ylytwo
wounded in their unprotected parts, they would sink alto-
Nt
r aw hthaetevreeii
marks of the hon. member for Finsbury (Sir M. Peto)
specting the Royal Albert. Again, with regard to Mr.
Reed, had the noble lord said anything in vindication of
the conduct of the Admiralty ? He could not say he agreed
with his noble friend ; but he reminded the house that he
had spoken of Mr." Reed with great favour. At the same
time he maintained the opinion he expressed on a former
evening, that the head of this, department of State had
rarely committed a graver error than the Board of Admi-
ralty did when they set aside men of great capacity and
long experience.
Lord C. PAGET explained that the Resistance and De-
fence were built precisely on the same principle as the
Warrior. If a shot entered the unprotected part of the
vessel, she would immerse 15f inches instead of sink-
ing, as the hon. member supposed.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said the flotation of the Warrior
was perfectly different to that of the Defence and Re-
sistance.

Sir J. ELPHINSTONE said the person who had most
right to complain was Admiral Dacres. He understood it
was not the custom in Parliament to state the substance
of papers that were not before the house. Therefore he
called upon the noble lord to produce the report in ex-
tenso, with Admiral Dacres' name to it. The hon. member
then reverted to the history of the Research, and drew
attention to the condition of the Valiant, a vessel, he said,
so unmanageable, that on getting her head towards
France she would have run right on the coast of that
country if they had not got her engines reversed, and
brought her rapidly round.
Mr. WHITBREAD pointed out that in 1859 Sir John
Pakington had used the same argument with respect to
the inadvisability of producing confidential reports to the
Admiralty, and defended the course taken by the Admi-
ralty last year in regard to the dock at Malta, as the only
one which they could reasonably take with the informa-
tion they then possessed.

Mr. SEELY reiterated the statements he had made on a
previous evening, that millions of money spent in building
and repairing ships were not properly accounted for.
The vote for the number of men was then agreed to.
An ZION. MEMBER here moved that the chairman do
report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The motion, however, was negatived.
A vote of £2,945,006 for wades to seamen and marines,
and a vote of £1,325,694 for victuals and clothing for sea-
men and marines, were also agreed to.
The Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Bill was read a second

time.
UNION OF BENEFICES ACT AMENDMENT.
Mr. BOUVERIE moved for leave to introduce a bill to
amend the Union of Benefices Act.
Mr. HUBBARD opposed the introduction of the bill, and
moved as an amendment for copies of the order in Council