The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, JUNE 184 1846.

for the whole is 100,0001. The line is to be on the narrow gauge
which is better suited than the broad gauge for traffic between col.
lleries and iron-works. _ _

On cross-examination by Mr. Jamie, the witness stated, that
when he was engaged to supply the line on the east side, Mr. Bynol
was also engaged to survey on the west side for some considerable
distance. The estimate does not include the cost of any stage,
jetty, or other shipping place.
To Mr. Jaiggs, the witness replied, that as the steepest gradients
would be in the upper part of the line, where the trade will be the
least, so on the canal the locks are most numerous in that district,
and consequently offer little impediment to the navigation of the
lower portion of Its course.

There was considerable cross-examination respecting the way in
which the line would affect the land of a gentleman of the name
of Benson, at Swansea, part of which is to be enclosed for wharfage
for the country.
To one of the Committee, Mr. Jones stated that the line, with its
branches, will be nineteen miles, the whole of which he had per-
sonally surveyed. The curve would be on a radius of half a mile.
Mr. Glascody, secretary to the Mineral Railway Company, con-
tlrmed the evidence of the previous witness as to the cost of con•-
strueting the line, and the Committee then adjourned till twelve to-
morrow.

GU LIIL
The Committee met to-day atP twelve o'clock, In Room No. 94
(Grand Corridor); Mr. Lascelles In the chair.
They resumed the consideration of the
SHREWSBURY AND BIRMINGHAM.
Mr. Robert Stephenson was examined by Mr. Herz, in detail, as to
the engineering merits.

Mr.-TALBOT cross-examined Mr. Stephenson on behalf of the
South Staffordshire lino, after which the Committee adjourned, at
four, to twelve o'clock to•morrow.

GROUP LVI.
The Select Committee appointed to consider the merits of the Bills
comprised in this group re-assembled at the usual hour this morning.
Mr. Evart in the chair.

had left the House under the impression that the debate on
the question had been adjourned until to-morrow.
NAVAL CIVIL DEPARTMENT BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill
being read,
Sir C. NAPIER addressed the House at some length as
to the impropriety of appointing men to the care and manage-
ment of the dockyards who understood nothing about them,
and who were utterly ignorant of ship-building, &c. He also
entered into a lengthy statement as to the sailing qualities
of the various vessels in the squadron. After several hun-
dred pounds had been expended in the construction of ships,
when they were sent out it was found that they were not fit
for :sea. He instanced in support of his argument :the
St. Vincent, the Albion, the Vanguard, &c. He
then gave a detailed statement of the sums which had
been expended in the repair of these ill-constructed vessels.
He quoted from the returns made by the officers of the dock-
yards, but ho was afraid that, great as the expense appeared
to be by these returns, it was in fact much greater, if the
truth was known.--(Hear, hear.) He thought that the
House of Commons had a right to insist that, when they
ordered returns to be made, those returns should be accurate
in every respect. It had been said by the Secretary of the
Admiralty that it would be improper to make proper returns
on this subject, because, if they did, foreign na'ions would
know the exact condition of our fleet, which might be in-
jurious to this country. But the truth was, that the French
knew much. more about our navy than we did ourselves.
The returns which the Admiralty had furnished were very
incorrect, in as far as the condition of the steam ships were
concerned. He would instance the Vulture steamer, the
returns respecting which were most inaccurate, and if the
returns respecting the others were of the same character, he
must say they were most objectionable. He be-
lieved there was not one of the steam-boats belong-
ing to the Government that was fit to be
called a ship of war. A great portion of them carried
their paddle-boxes five or six feet above the level of the
deck, and if they were to go into war the first shots would,
he was persuaded, carry them away. If a war took place to-
morrow, a steam fleet might be sent out with 10,000 or
15,000 men. If that were the case, then, from these high
paddle-boxes and engines, the first shot would de-
stroy all the men in any one of these steamers—
the only safety with such vessels was to place the boilers
below the water. The Admiralty ought to confess their
error, and if these vessels were inefficient, take measures to
put them in a proper state for the service of the country.
There were many other vessels named in the catalogue
which were liable to similar objections. A great number of
the steam gun-boats, he believed, would prove to be
of no use whatever. They were ',called gun-boats,
but he felt certain they would be found totally useless in case
of being employed in war-service. He found, on looking
over the returns, that a great number of three and two-
deckers were cut down. He did not object to the first two
that were cut down, but they had been so numerous that he
must now refer to them. Thirteen two-deckers had been cut
down to make bad frigates. It would have been better to have
worn them out as they were originally. If a war were to arise,
involving: a war in the Baltic or the Mediterranean, they
would have no ships to employ but those bad frigates. But
so great was the mania for cutting down in the Admiralty
that a large number of the large frigates built at
the end of the last war in order to compete
with the large frigates of the Americans, were
now in process of being cut down to corvettes. Forty-
five large frigates had been built, and this was the
process now employed towards them. The Hon. and Gal-
lant Member then referred to the magazine ships the condi-
tion of which he represented to be equally objectionable.
With the enormous number of ships they had built,
and what they were building, he thought the navy
ought to be more efficient. One great objection he had to
those ships was, that many of them were too large in
size. He believed that before many years large ships
would be given up altogether, and small ships
be employed in their stead. He believed a great
deal of the neglect of the Admiralty was from leaving the
management of building the ships in the hands
of one officer. He, felt certain that no one man could
attend to these matters: as they ought to be. He knew from
his experience that such must be the case. The ship-builders
of Glasgow, Liverpool, or on the river, could produce far
better steamers than any the Admiralty had built.—
(Hear.) The steamers to America and the West Indies
went regularly all the year round, as did also the Liverpool
and Glasgow packets; yet when the Admiralty ships went
out in stormy weather they got wrecked.—(Hear, hear.)
The fault he considered was in the construction of the Ad-
miralty, and the leaving of the matter all to the manage-
ment of one man.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Gallant
Member then analysed at some length the method of conduct-
ing business by the Admiralty, which he considered to be most
improper and inefficient. The business ought to be properly
classified, and each department superintended by a proper
officer, instead of the whole being under the control of the
men who could not attend to it. Especially there ought to
be a Comptroller of the Dockyard, and of the Victualling
Department, instead of Captain Rous only running down
to Portsmouth once a year and taking a mere glance
at what was going on. The man who should be placed
at the head of these departments should be responsible for
the efficiency of everything under his charge. Were this
the case, instead of having as bad a steam frigate as they
could well have, they would have as good a one as could be
desired. The Bill he proposed would meet all these evils, and
provide for one efficient management of the departments to
which he had referred. He thanked the House for having
listened to his statement, and he would sit down by moving
the second reading of the Bill.
Lord INGESTRE considered the government of the navy
of the country to be a subject of the most paramount import-
ance. In seconding the motion for the second reading of
the Bill, he wished it to be clearly understood, that it was
from no party feeling or sordid motive towards those gentle-
men who were placed at the head of affairs in the Admiralty.
In 1832 a Bill was introduced which had for its object the
abolition of the Navy Board, and in abolishing the Board the
House went rather too far, as it threw an unfair distribution
of labour upon the First Lord of the Admiralty, whose office
was better placed in the bands of a civil than a naval
officer. The Admiralty Board had no time to
devote to scientific operations, as they were so
much occupied in correspondence and other matters
connected with the business of the office. He com-
plained that the returns he had moved for and obtained were
very garbled and incorrect, and had no signature attached to
them, so that their correctness was not vouched for. Ile
hoped that the Gallant Officer, the Member for Ripon, would
give some explanation of the report. There were no dia-
grams given in the returns, and he should like to have the
opinion of the Admiralty upon them. It was important that
they should be assured of going in the right direction. It
was a question whether the construction of steamers of large
dimensions was advantageous or not to the service. He
thought that steamers built on a smaller scale would be
found more efficacious and useful. These, however,
were considerations which should be referred to the
Naval Board, for them to decide on. He had al-
luded to the expenses, the trickery, the jobbing,
that was going on in the naval department, and the falsified
returns, by which the House and the public were prevented
from arriving at any correct knowledge of facts. It was time
that a stop should be put to the reckless manner in which
money had been expended in building ships.—(Hear,
hear.) Although he did not agree with all the details
of the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman's Bill, yet he should be
happy to vote for its going into Committee, as it would, in
his opinion, tend to prevent many of the abuses of whisk'
he had complained.
Mr. CORRY thought that the opinions of the Hon.
and Gallant Officer, the Member for Marvlebone, on
the construction of the Admiralty Board were quite
inconsistent with his previously expressed opinions.
A more objectionable measure than that proposed by the
Gallant Commodore could not have been conceived. The
Navy Board at the time of its dissolution consisted of six
officers, who acted individually, each as a check on the other.
He objected to special power being lodged in the,hands of one
individual, who was to be in a measure irresponsible
for stly of his acts, and who should not be liable to be
removed on a change of Administration. He thought the
whole of the measure extremely offensive. It would entail
great delay in the execution of the public duties, and would
not be counter-balanced in any way by any corresponding
advantage. The Hon. Gentleman reviewed the opinion
which had been expressed by the Gallant Commodore
on the sailing qualities of the experimental squadron.
The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months.
The SPEAKER having put the question,
Lord INGESTRE explained.
Captain PECHELL said that the Right Honourable
Gentleman, in making his motion, must have for-
gotten that it had been sanctioned by the very
high authority of Captain Ron; whilst filling the office
of a Lord of the Admiralty. It had also the support of the
Noble Lord the Member for Staffordshire. He considered it
the duty of the House to pass such a Bill with a view to the
correction of the evils which had been so fully
exposed and proved to exist in the naval department
by the Honourable and Gallant Member (Sir C. Napier).
The instant a member of the Admiralty presumed to hold an
independent opinion he must prepare to leave that depart-
ment. That was one amongst other reasons why the House
should pass this Bill. It was most desirable that the First
Lord of the Admiralty should have it in his power, without
risk of loss of office, to act in accordance with what he con-
ceived to be the interest of the navy. He thought that the
Surveyor of the Navy. was deserving of the highest respect;
and the Admiralty, in endeavouring to get rid of him
were, in his opinion, acting a very unwise and unjust part.
—(hear.) The Gallant Admiral (Sir E. Cockburn) would
hereafter be called upon by him to produce a certain docu-
ment, by which it had been agreed by the members of the
Admiralty to make the Surveyor of the Navy a perfect cipher.
He was very glad that the Bill proposed to maintain
the services of the Secretary of the Admiralty. He
hoped that a Board might be appointed to in-.
quire whether the Admirals were fit to command;
he believed that there could not be found at the present mo-
ment in England an admiral able to command the squadron
of evolution. There was such a spirit of insubordination in the
Admiralty that he certainly was of opinion that this Bill
would effect a change which would be highly bene-
ficial. His constituents were always calling upon him
to vote for reduction of the expenses in the naval
department. This Bill had certainly been brought forward
without much consideration ; but he was at all times ready
to vote for a motion that would have the effect of improving
the present management of the navy, and he should, there-
fore, vote for the second reading of this Bill.
Sir G. COCKBURN defended the members of the Admi-
ralty against the charges of mismanagement which had been
brought against them.
Captain PLUMRIDGE said he knew two gentlemen that
were most unfairly treated by the Board of Admiralty; men
who held inferior offices, and of inferior quality, were ap-
pointed to situations before them.
Mr. C. WOOD supported the Bill, the object of which he
said was to restore the intermediate authorities in the Ad-
miralty which had been recently removed.—(Hear, hear.)
Captain BERKELEY, on the part of Captain Rous, denied
that he had sanctioned the introduction ofsuch a Bill as that
before the House.

Sir C. NAPIER replied. He commenced by reiterating
the statement that the Bill had the approval of Captain
Rous, and then proceeded to reply to the speeches of the
two night Hon. Gentlemen the members of the Admi-
ralty (Mr. Corry and Sir George Cockburn ). If the
Admiralty consumed less paper in writing nonsensical
letters to the admirals of the different ports and
squadrons, he was convinced that they would more
efficiently discharge their duties.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) Their conduct was very like that of children.
If they pursued their present course of tactics they would
most assuredly destroy the navy.—(Hear) He had not
much fault to hod with the Surveyor of the Admiralty, but he
really did think that, itt every point, that gentleman had
not properly discharged his dUZiea. He again repeated his
convictions of the absolute necessity of reconstructing the
Board of Admiralty.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading of the Bill ll
Against
••••- O• 107
Majority against the second readingOOOO ..
—...-96
G OF TENEM
on ES
On the motionRATIN for the secd reading of this BILL.
Bill,
Mr. R. PALMER objected to the Bill as it at present.
stood. lie would not, however, oppose its second reading, as
it might be amended in Committee.
P, aculez 149ught they plight to moo ore th
ey
• . ,

assented to the second reading of this Bill. It would ope-
rate, he felt persuaded, against the building of tenements for
the poorer classes, as the Bill provided for the rates being
paid by the owners of such property, and not by the tenants
who occupied them. He thought the law as it at present
stood was objectionable, but he did not think the Bill before
the House would meet the case. By the Bill, if the owners
paid the rate, then it would be charged on the occupier in
the shape of increased rate, while the real ratepayers would
have no control whatever in the application and direction of
the rates so raised. He would conclude by moving an
amendment that the Bill be read that day six months.
Mr. HAWES moved that the debate be now adjourned.
Mr. SPOONER seconded the motion.
Mr. MILES thought, as it was impossible to argue the
question that sitting and take the division before six o'clock,
it would be better to adjourn the debate.
The debate was then adjourned till this day week.
SMOKE PROHIBITION BILL.
The further consideration of this Bill, after a short conver-
sation, was adjourned till Wednesday, the Bth of July.
PLACES OF WORSHIP, &c. SITES (SCOTLAND).
The adjourned debate on this Bill was put off till to-
morrow.

CORONERS' (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Lord LINCOLN, the House went into
Committee on this Bill.

Sir W. SOMERVILLE objected to going on at that late hour
with such an Important Bill, containing fifteen clauses, when
it was near six o'clock, and there were other orders of the
day to be disposed of.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and asked leave
to sit again.
The House then resumed.

The Administration of Criminal Justice Bill was read a
third time and passed.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Six o'clock.