The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-17 00:00:00

and explanation to that which had been stated in another

debate. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON' said he could not concur in the
objection which had been taken. If the strict rules of the
house were enforced when an hon. member moved the ad-
journment of the house, in order to discuss some topic un-

connected with that motion, he ought to be stopped and told
to confine himself to giving reasons why the house should
adjourn. The vote before the house was for the Admiralty-
office, and it was competent for his noble friend and for the
house upon that vote to discuss everything which could be
said for or against the Admiralty and the manner in which
they conducted the affairs of the navy. His noble friend

might, it was true, have made his statement before the
Speaker left the chair, but nothing was more common than

that a person charged with the conduct of a department

defer his reply until the house want into committee. No one
who had sat long in that house but must have observed
that frequently, upon the Army Estimates and other mat-

tern, that course had been pursued. So far from being in-
convenient, it was rather an advantage, because, before the

Speaker left the chair, the mouths of members who had

previously taken part in the debate were closed.

Lord I:OVAIIsiE said that if the noble lord was right
the Chairman was wrong, because the hon. gentleman in
the chair had limited the explanation of the noble lord (C.
Paget) to the subject to which the vote referred.

Sir A. WILLO UGHBY remembered that alate Secretary
of the Treasury (Mr. Wilson) had deferred his reply in a
debate on the Civil Service Estimates until the Speaker had
left the chair. The consequence was a general debate, which
continued all night and ended in an adjourned debate. Did
the noble lord (Palmerston) consult the interests of the
Government in the doctrine he had laid down ? Was it not

wiser to have a matter discussed and disposed of ? If mem-
bers
were to go on talking in committee de omnibus rebus et
quibtesdam aliii, some one at 12 o'clock would move an ad-
journment. It was the duty of the house to adhere to the
strict point before it, and he trusted that this rule would not
be departed from.
Lord PALMERSTON said it had been his duty for many
years to move the Army Estimates. What was done on those
occasions ? On proposing the first vote the practice was to
go into detail and explain everything connected with the
army. The present vote, being for the Admiralty, would
justify his noble friend in defending the manner in which
that department conducted the naval service of the country.
Sir C. NAPIER wished to remind the noble lord that the
Secretary to the Admiralty had, on Moving the first vote,
made his statement relative to the navy. (Hear.)
After a few words from Admiral D UNCOMBH,
Lord C. PAGET said that his only object was the conve-

nience of public business. He did not want to shirk aay ex-
planations of the various matters which had been brought
under the notice of the house. If he had erred, it was from

ignorance rather than any bad intentions. (Hear.), His first
duty now was to notice the remarks; of his hon. friend the
member for Portsmouth relative to the reserved captains of
the Royal Navy.
Lord LOVAINE again rose to order. He could see
nothing in the vote before the committee which in any way
related to the subject referred to by the noble lord. (Hear.)
Lord C. PAGET said he would defer the explanation he
had to offer in regardto the case of the reserved post-captains,
although he regretted to do so, as many gentlemen were
naturally anxious to hear it. (Hear.) He hoped he would
be in order in replying to the observations of the right hon.
member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley).
Lord LOVAINE remarked that the subject of timber
came under vote 10. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Lord C. PAGET—Verywell, then I will confine myself
to the vote before the committee. (Hear.)
Sir C. NAPIER drew attention to the fact that the vote
for- the Admiralty-office was continually on the increase.
This year it was larger than it was the year before by
£143,230. His great objection to the vote, however, arose
from his conviction that the constitution of the Admiralty
was incompatible with the proper management of the naval
business of the country. As long as the Admiralty was
presided over by a man destitute of practical experience of
naval life, the same absence of order and economy would be
observable as at present. The First Lord had to discharge
duties which as a civilian he could not possibly know any-
thing about. The professional man who acted as a sort of
" dry nurse," being generally selected by the First Lord
himself, was as likely to be inefficient as not, and even if
fit for the post his advice was often disregarded, or perhaps
not asked for at all. Each member of the Board had a pa*
ticular department allotted to his charge, but very often the
First Lord gave orders which his colleagues blew nothing
about. When Sir J. Graham was First Lord, and assumed
the responsibility of acting in that manner, Sir J. Pechell,
a very conscientious officer, protested against it; but all mem-
bers of the Board were not equally independent. The per-
petual changes in the Board which took place under the pre-
sent system could not fail to be prejudicial to the service.
(Hear, hear.) He believed that one of the chief causes of
the discontent which had prevailed in the navy for some
time past was that the sailors were confined too closely to
drill at Portland, and debarred from the privilege of going
ashore, which they used formerly to enjoy. Drill was
always irksome to a sailor. When carried too far it in-
variably produced discontent ; and when the men were
called off from "leave" the irritation was sure to be in-
creased. The patronage of the Admiralty was practically in
the hands of tho First Lord, and it was not easy to see how
that was to be prevented. The First Lord claimed a certain
share of the promotions and appointments as his own private
patronage, and indeed seldom asked advice as to the disposal
of any of it. Tho Duke of Somerset was the present First
Lord, and how had he distributed the patronage ? He had
bestowed a command on Admiral Milne—a very excellent
officer, certainly, who, while captain, had been in constant
service, but had been,for 11 years a Lord of the Admiralty.
Admiral Milne was a canny Scotchman—(a laugh)—and
bad retained his scat at the Board under both Whigs and
Tories. He was now despatched to the North American
station. Then there was Admiral Bruce, a very excellent
officer too, who had had three commands running. He had
commanded on the coast of Africa, was removed thence to'
the Pacific, and was now installed at Portsmouth Dockyard.
Admiral Bruce was a very good officer, as he had said, but
then he was not the only good officer in the service. The
next was Admiral Fanshawe, who had held four previous
commands, and had not,remained in any one of them long
enough to complete his time. He was, no doubt, a very ex-
cellent officer ; but he was not the only good officer in the
service. They were doing everything they possibly could
to prevent the Commander-in-Chief or the Secretary at War
constantly keeping the same officers in each department of
the army, and the same thing ought to be done with regard
to the navy. The next appointment of the present First
Lord was Admiral Elliott; who was removed from the
Channel squadron to Portsmouth, then to the Admiralty,
and now to the Mediterranean. He had not the least ob-
jection to any of these officers, but it was very hard that
officers who were equally as good should not have a chance
of gaining experience. It might be necessary to change the
First Lord with each change of Administration, but the
other Lords should be put in for a certain time—say five
years, and one changed every year, so as to keep up a con-
stant supply of experienced men. It was not his intention
to oppase the vote, but he should take an early opportunity
of submitting a substantive motion upon the subject.
4 Lord LOVAINE said that some explanation was also
needed of the increase of charge for clerks, from £18,732
last year to £19,210, when it was remembered that the
packet contracts had been transferred to the Post-office. He
took the opportunity of stating that Mr. Clifton, the head
of the steam department, brought under his notice the
whole of the documents relating to the Churchward con-
tract, and that he was not amenable, to the censure which
the right hen. member for Portsmouth had passed in the
course of a recent debate, under the supposition that he had
not done so. He believed Mr. Clifton to be a most active
and intelligent public Servant.
Lord C. PAGET said that the gallant admiral seemed to
find fault with the Duke of Somerset for appointing proper
men.

Sir C. NAPIER said he found fault with the constant
continuation in commands of the same officers.
Lord C. PAGET said that if they had a good man he
thought it best to give him another command as soon as an
opportunity occurred ; but all the appointments of the Duke
of Somerset had been made after consultation, and with the
unanimous approval of the professional members of the
Board. The increase of charge for clerks partly arose from
promotion of third-class clerks to second-glass clerks, and
partly from the progressive increase of salaries. There had
been no reduction consequent on the transfer of the packet
contracts to the Post-office, because an immense increase of
work had been entailed by the augmentation of the service.
It had been necessary to appoint temporary clerks, and they
had preferred to do so because they hoped the necessity was
only temporary.
Admiral DUNCOMBE believed that it would be more
economical to make permanent appointments, and that the
work would be better done.
d Naval After some further conversation the vote was agreed to.
On the vote of £287,000 for the salaries of the Coastguard
an
ARPesleErve,
Sir C. R asked whether the 9,000 men figuring
tv:ocne
oofn bthoaordAadmm wt
oa rr,
pando
ow ht
heat whether
roisto
nwta
es
otahset
ginutaernd-
on this vote as Coastguard'a Reserve were fit for actual ser-
ianralt°;-
ships by efficient vessels ?
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE advocated the placing of the re-
serve under a separate staff department, and recommended
to the attention of the Admiralty and the house a pain_
phlet lately published by Admiral Martin, which was a most
useful compendium of the whole subject. The duties of the
Coastguard, whether officers or men, were extremely ardu-
ous, and the only advantages which that service offered were
those which arose from enabling them to live with their
families. In order to render the Coastguard thoroughly
efficient as a naval reserve, he recommended that a large
addition should be made to its numbers, and that the men
should be thoroughly trained and drilled, so as to lit them
for the position of captains of guns, in case they were sud-
denly required to embark.
Admiral WALCOTT inquired whether he was correct in
believine• that out of 7,200 Coastguardsmen 1,500 or 2,000
men had no pretension to the character of seamen, and
could not be relied on in an emergency ?
Sir J. PAKINGTON hoped the noble lord would also
be able to state how many naval coast volunteers were now
enrolled, and to what extent they had come forward for
drill during the past year.
1,001 g, Liwgl said QA the I§t Ware woo sal board