The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-20 00:00:00

SUPPLY.

The house then went into committee of supply on the
navy estimates.
The first vote proposed was one of £174,000 to defray the
salaries of officers in her Majesty's naval establishments at
home.
Mr. WILLIAMS complained of the item of £642 for
temporary clerks, which last year amounted to £Ol. He ob-
served, too, that an officer, called an "assistant superinten-
dent," had been appointed at Portsmouth and Devonport,
at a salary of £3OO a year, and ene called an "acting ac-
countant," at Devonport, at a salary of cf.;500. These offices
did not exist the year before, and there were other appoint-
ments equally objectionable, considering that they were
made for the first time. The whole increase on the vote was
£24,700, which, at such a moment, was altogether unjusti-
fiable. If the house were not so thin, he should certainly
divide it upon the vote, but at any rate he hoped to hear
some satisfactory explanation on the subject.

Sir M. SEYMOUR observed that if the officers of the
dockyards had asked for assistance, it would be a good
ground for giving it to them, otherwise the contemplated
step appeared to be somewhat unjustifiable.
Lord C. PAGET said it was true the officers of Ports-
mouth and Devonport dockyards had not asked for as-
sistance, but as the number of men in those yards were
doubled, and there were many more clerks employed there,
it was not reasonable to expect the superintendents to be
equal to their increased duties. Their correspondence was
immensely increased, and but for that it was probable
they would have been able to prevent the embezzlements

which had occurred of late. It was a piece of economy in
that point of view; but as the Admiralty felt that an in-
quiry must take place shortly into the whole question of
dockyard management, the board proposed not to make the
appointments until after the result of the inquiry was known.
He proposed therefore that they stand in the estimates for
the present, subject to that understanding. With regard
to the employment of temporary clerks, he would say that
were the business of our dockyards to continue upon its
present scale of magnitude, it would be necessary to in-
crease those establishments enormously. He hoped however
that much of it would before long cease, and in the mean-
time the present temporary arrangement had been made.
Mr. BRISTOWE and Mr. JACKSON urged that the
vote should be reduced by £1,600, the amount of these sa-
laries; to which Lord C. PAGET assented.

Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY wished to know how many new
appointments w6uld be made under that estimate ; and, if
the appointments were made, whether they would be entitled

to superannuation ?

Lord C. PAGET said that the two assistant-superinten-
dents were the only new appointments made in the vote,
and the holders of them would not be entitled to superan-

nuation.

After some conversation,
Mr. Alderman SALOMONS inquired upon what princi-
ple it was that men were discharged from the dockyards,
and whether promol ion was by seniority or by ability ?

Lord C. PAGET said the dismissals and promotions were
entirely under the control of the superintendents, who were
the best judges of the comparative merits of the men. He
must say that there never had been an application to him
for promotion in the dockyards, and he was determined
that politics should have nothing whatever to do with this
department of the public service.
Mr. JACKSON objected to the constant changes which
took place in the offices of superintendents of dockyards.
The plan adopted in mercantile business was not to dis-
charge a man when he had learnt his duties, but to keep
the man and give him increased remuneration.
Mr. A. SMITH thought that system was one of the
main causes of the inefficiency of that department.
Sir J. ELPIIINSTONE complained of the want of pro-
per Provision for the services of Presbyterian ministers to
officers and men. belonging to that denomination in those
departments.
Lord C. PAGET said that no application had been made
t o the Admiralty, which, if there had been any large num-
ber of persons having ground of complaint, he thought
would have been the case.

The amendment was withdrawn and the vote agreed to.
The next vote was £30,953 for salaries of navy officers and
expenses of establishments abroad.
-Upon the vote of £1,400,000,

Mr. LINDSAY drew attention to the extravagant cost

of ship building in her Majesty's dockyards as compared
with private establishments. This subject had been inves-
tigated by a committee of the house, and they had pointed
out upon a comparison of the cost of certain ships that the
cost per ton in her Majesty's yards was 170 s. per ton,
whereas the cost in a private yard was only 525. per ton.
In other words a ship could be build in a private yard for
one-third the sum it cost in her Majesty's dockyard. That
was a grave charge which the committee had made against
the dockyard department, and required explanation.
Lord C. PAGET said that a very careful inquiry bad
been instituted into this subject, and it had been found that
the vessels alluded to had been built in the height and con-
fusion of tho Russian war. The noble lord entered into some
details, in the course of which he admitted there was a
u ant of system. It had also been discovered that some of
the clerks, being overworked, had fallen into error in figures,
so that the accounts rendered were incorrect. An investi-
gation was still going on. Ho thought that what had al-
ready transpired showed the necessity of having annual
accounts prepared from these departments for the inspec-
tion of Parliament.

Mr. JACKSON was told by a party connected with the
dockyards that the reason there was a difference between
the cost in one dockyard and another was that in one there
were two masters to every man, and in another one to every
ten men. He had also been informed that it was no use ap-
pointing committees to inquire into the dockyards, as the
authorities always humbugged them.
Lord LOVAINE severely censured the manner in which

the works were conducted in their dockyards, but he did not
approve of wholesale charges being made against the autho•

Mr. LINDSAY made no charge against anybody, but
only relied on the evidence given before the committee.
Lord LOVAINE charged the contractors in their dock-
yards with being guilty of practices which were much to be
deprecated.

Mr. JACKSON defended the contractors, who were as
honest as any noble lord in England.
Sir C. NAPIER thought the way to remedy this evil
was to have a proper superintendence and proper salaries to
those engaged in the duty.

After some further conversation on the question on the

various cost of shipbuilding per ton in the English dock-
yards, and on the discrepancies in the estimates, in which
Sir J. Trelawny, Mr. Henley, Lord C. Paget, Sir H. Wil-
loughby, Sir J. Elphinstone, and Mr. Alderman Salomons
took part,
Mr. LINDSAY expressed his surprise that so large a sum
as £1,400,000 was proposed for defraying the expenses of
shipbuilding in their dockyards. He found that the country
was charged 170 s. per ton for shipbuilding in the dockyards,
while in private dockyards similar work was executed for
525. per ton. He felt that he should not be performing his
duty if he did not move that the vote be reduced—he might
say two-thirds, but he would say by £lOO,OOO.
Admiral WALCOTT said there was nothing for which
the public were more disposed to liberally vote money than
for the purposes of the navy, provided they were satisfied
that the money was properly laid out; but when they heard
of crippled ships, with no sailing power, they were much
dissatisfied.
Lord LOVAINE referred to the report of the man who
built the gunboats, and said that the very man who built
those boats told them in that report that they could not be
built for £2 Bs., and that their cost altogether, including
their fittings, was £6.
After a few words from Mr. LYGON,
Sir J. PAKINGTON said he should be unable to sup-
port the hon. member for Sunderland if he intended to
carry his amendment to a division. He was extremely sorry
to find that the Government had ignored the proceedings of
a committee which had pursued its duties in the most un-
exceptionable manner. The only notice, in fact, which the
Admiralty had taken of that committee was a curt memo-
randum of the noble duke at the head of the Admiralty,
conceived in a very unworthy spirit, and coming from him
with the worst possible grace. No man had made more
serious charges against the naval administration than had
that noble lord. The noble lord had said that £5,000,000
had been wasted by successive boards ; but he had not come
forward either to re. assert his accusations or to verify them.
Those charges had, however, been refuted by Sir Baldwin
Walker, and he very much regretted that the Government
should have thought proper to proceed in the manner it had
with reference to these estimates. At the same time he
thought it highly inexpedient at such a moment as this
not to pass a vote which would have the effect of shackling
their free action in a most essential matter.
Mr. BRISCOE recommended the hon. member for Sun-
derland to withdraw his amendment.
Lord C. PAGET said ho could not allow the remarks of
the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich, with
reference to the Committee on Dockyard Economy, to pass
unnoticed. When the right hen. baronet said that the
recommendations bf that committee had been ignored
by the present Board of Admiralty, he could assure the
house that some of them were now under consideration,
and would eventually be adopted ; one with regard to a
new system of examinations. The right hon. gentleman
said also, that the tone of the noble duke's memorandum
was anything but proper; but as to that ho (Lord C. Paget)
must be permitted to observe that the tone of the report of
the committee itself was unjust, and somewhat offensive to
the officers of the dockyards. They attributed the evils
which they pointed out to a want of zeal on the part of the
officers, but he could find no evidence to support that charge.
The committee, in fact, admitted that many of their recom-
mendations were not founded upon evidence, and one of its
members refused to join in the report, which to some ex-
tent weakened its value.
Sir C. NAPIER vindicated the conduct of Sir Baldwin
Walker, who, he maintained, had not as yet made a single
mistake. If the Government did not retract the charges
which they, had made against that officer, he ought not to
continue to bo Surveyor or Comptroller of the Navy.
Mr. JACKSON explained that ho had received every as-
sistance from the noble duke at the head of the Govern
ment with reference to getting the commission he intended
to move for, and that his persisting in his motion would
have been productive of great public inconvenience.
Mr. MONSELL expressed his hope that the Govern-
ment would turn their attention to the improvement of the
defences of Cork Harbour. Of the enormous increase in
the navy and military estimates he did not believe that one
shilling was intended to be expended on the improvement
of the safety of Ireland.
After a few words from Mr. BENTINCK,
Col. DICKSON said that the want of control over the
expenditure of the country produced the impression that
the members of that house were incompetent to discharge
their duty. When they were told that these ships could
hardly go out for six weeks without requiring repairs, it was
high time inquiry should take place. It was a question
whether the style of ships could not be improved, and in
other respects the expenditure of the dockyards be reduced.
He should on that ground vote for the amendment of the
hon. member for Sunderland.
The amendment was thus put and negatived, and the
vote was agreed to.
On the next vote, £63,686, wages of artificers employed
in her Majesty's establishments abroad,
Mr.:WILLIAMS objected that many of the items were
not given for which the money was required.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE said tho increase arose out of the

Chinese war.
The vote was agreed to.
On the next vote of £3,204,431 for naval stores, for
building repairs, &c.,
Lord C. PAGET said he would take that opportunity of
making some reply to the important statement of the
right hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire on a
previous evening. The right hon. gentleman said that in
consequence of the neglect of successive Boards of Admi-
ralty the stock of timber necessary for ship-building pur-
pdes had been allowed to fall far below what it ought to
be—that whereas it was formerly the practice to keep three
years' supply in stock, for the purpose of thoroughly
seasoning it, we now kept only two years' stock, which
was insufficient to give properly seasoned timber. In
reply to that statement he might certainly, if he chose to
do so, make the same reply to the right hon. gentleman as

was made to him by his colleague, the late First Lord of
the Admiralty, last year, namely, that that right hon.
gentleman only asked for a supply equal to two years'
stock last year. But he would not do that; on the con-
trary, he was prepared to show that two years' stock in
hand was now amply sufficient for all practical purposes.
The right hon. gentleman seemed to be under the impres-
sion, derived from the evidence of some of the witnesses be-
fore the dockyard committee, that ships were built of timber
not properly seasoned, and that we ought to have a larger
stock. Undoubtedly, if we were to continuo building ships
at the rate we had recently done, that might be true. But
he took the average quantity of 60,000 loads of timber per
annum for building ; that was the quantity ho asked for the
current year. 'We had nearly the same quantity in stock at
the commencement of the present year, and we would have
the same at its close. In other words they would have two
years' stock in hand. Circumstances had very much changed
since it was considered necessary to keep up a three years'
stock. In those days the use of hard woods and foreign
wood was almost unknown. Their great supply was almost
confined to English eak, which being purchased on the spot
required a longer seasoning, But Italian oak and other fo-
reign woods were partly seasoned on their voyage to this
country. Not less than two-thirds of the whole of the woods
used in ship building were now foreign woods, and did not
want any seasoning at all. That made ono great cause of
difference as to the amount of stock required to be kept in
hand. The right hon. gentleman seemed to think also that
a very long time was required for seasoning, but there was a
difference of opinion on that point. Mr. Green, one of our
largest shipbuilders, said that two years were quite suffi-
cient for English oak to season, as after that it began to de-
teriorate. But the right hon. gentleman talked as if the
Government had nothing to do but to come to the house and
ask for another £lOO,OOO, in order to get an additional
£lOO,OOO worth of timber. That was not the case—they
could not get it. There was not enough of the largesized
timber we used to meet a larger demand within one year.
(" Hear," from Mr. Henley.) It was, however, very
desir-
able that we should get a more regular and a larger supply
from abroad, and he could state to the right hon. -gentle-
man that the Government was taking steps for that pur-
pose which it was impossible for him to state in detall. But
he hoped they would shortly succeed in that object. With

....r- -

respect to the green wood, they required very large timbers
for the rudder, and it was impossible to get seasoned wood
of the size required. They therefore used green wood in
that case only. With regard to teak, they had a very large
quantity in stock, and would add to it this year in propor-
tion. We were now building four iron-cased ships, and if
they were successful we would not hear much more of line-

of-battle ships. lie maintained that it would be unwise on
our part to increase the number of our ships built on the
present model if this system should prevail.
Mr. HENLEY said he had given no opinion of his own
on the subject when he spoko the other night. He merely
quoted authorities in the naval dockyards as to the season,.
ing of timber. As to the supply of timber, he relied upon
the evidence of the Storekeeper-General, and he found that
even the First Lord of the Admiralty estimated the annual
supply of timber at 65,000 loads. He (Mr. Henley) consi-
dered that quantity insufficient. Sir B. Walker thought
three line-of-battle .ships and three frigates, and four
small vessels, ought to bo built every year, and the quantity
of timber required for them would be 32,000 loads. glow,
when you take into consideration the number of additional
vessels required, it was obvious that at least 80,000 loads
would be required per annum. He would not give any
opinion as to the seasoning of the timber that would come
in, nor would he deny the Government the credit of doing
the best they could, but he thought it desirable to have as
largo an amount as possible of timber on hand, to meet ant
accidents that might happen. He did not, however, think
that the 60,000 loads would be sufficient. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK observed that the price of anchors and
chains for some years had not diminished, althoughin pri-
vate yards they could be manufactured at one-third the
amount of what they cost in Government establishments.
The public had been invited to compete for the contract
for chains and anchors, but for several years one firm had a
monopoly of the work. He thought this unfair. (Hear.)
Mr. RIDLEY wished to know whether the Government
wars of opinion that it was better for the public service to
build largo line-of-battle ships of timber, instead of building
them of iron, and without any reference to recent improve-
ments in the science of gunnery ?
Sir C. NAPIER asked whether it had ever entered into
the heads of the Board of Admiralty how a ship could be
managed after her coals had been burned out ?
Sir W. JOLLIFFE said the estimate last year for steam-
vessels and gunboats was £500,000; for other vessels em-
ployed in the:service £1,400,000, and he thought the total
sum asked for the year was large in proportion to•former
years.

After a few words from Sir M. PETO,
Mr. FREELAND asked was any arrangement in pro-
gress for improving our coal depots, where the fleet might
be expected to rendezvous, and for facilitating the means of
getting coals on board ship in cases of emergency. To these
purposes he thought that a portion of the large sum intended
to be expended on foi tificatiens might advantageously be
employed.
Lord C. PAGET said that no great progress had been
made in improving their coal depots, or the means of placing
coals on board ship, as, with large crews, the old appliances
had been found to answer. There were, however, tyre
clever machines of recent construction on trial, and, if sue'
cessful, they would be adopted. With regard to the cost of
anchors and chains, it was quite true that the Admiral/
had but one manufacturer of those articles. Mews. Brown
and Lennox supplied them, and the anchors purchased from
that firm were of the cheapest quality. He, however, agreed
with the hon member for Norfolk that it might not be unad-
visable on the part of the Admiralty to consider the propriety
of opening the contract to competition. With regard to
the cost of the large iron ships in progress of being built,
he should briefly state the amount. There were four iron-
cased ships at a contract of £739,325, the engines-5210,115,
making a total of £949,440, or nearly a million for the hulls
and machinery ; six screw sloops of 200-horse power, at a
cost of £88,754, and £60,000 for the engines ; 12 gun vessels
of 80-horse power each, at a cost of £119,255, and ma-
chinery £49,960 ; 10 gunboats of 60-horse power each, at
a cost of £62,382, and £32,235 for machinery. The total,
therefore, for hulls was £270,000, and £141,000 for engines.
The grand total cost of vessels in course of construction by
contract, therefore, amounted to £1,355,807. 'With the ex'
ception of the four iron-cased vessels, all the others, 67 in
number, were wooden ships. None of these vessels ha
their.boilers so adapted that when the coal WAS entirely
consumed they could be ballasted with water.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE considered the system of test;
ing cables was perfect, and suggested that the new vessel'
should be fitted up with smoke-consuming apparatus..
Mr. LINDSAY objected to the vote on the 'int
ground that they did not get value for their money. 8
reiterated his charge that the Admiralty paid for anchors
and cables 100 per cent. higher than they could be obtainet
from other parties in London, quite competent to sup,/
articles of equal quality. He wished to know whether the
coals were supplied by public tender or private contract?
Mr. BRUCE said that public tender was not the best
means of getting good coal on moderate terms. The .A.4'
miralty ought to employ trustworthy agents.
In reply to Mr. BENTINCK,
Lord C. PAGET thought, that under the new arrfitige•
ments the Admiralty would have a good supply of coals.
There was an officer whose duty it was to make a weekly
report on the subject. As to the consumption of smoke,
two men were starting upon entirely opposite principles,
and until this controversy was settled they could only ex-
periment on the subject, and they were now fitting up
few vessels for the purpose.
Admiral WALCOT observed that the sum of £400,000
was an enormous sum for coal, and he thought that in-
structions should be given only to use steam when it wag
necessary. A little more use of canvass would be both
beneficial and economical.
In reply to Sir J. PAKINGTON,
Lord C. PAGET said that the iron-case ship ordered
would be launched in the beginning of July. There well
other ships of that construction contracted for, but be cola,'
not state at present when they would be ready.
The vote was then agreed to.
The CHAIitMAN reported progress, and the house 11"
sumed.
SIR JOHN BARNARD'S ACT, &c., REPEAL 101411:
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
second reading of this bill.
Mr. BENTINCK moved that the debate be now
jourred. He should oppose the further progress of the
bill at that late hour.
The house then divided—
Far the adjournment
Against it ...
Majority —B9
Mr. BOVILL moved that the house do now adjourtl:
He had heard three accounts of the object of this bill, 11:
one of which agreed with the other. Theprinciple of s"„'
bill was to sanction gambling of the worst description u,..1
the Legislature. No discussion had yet taken plaee
the principle of the bill, and he therefore moved the ge
journment of the house.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL hoped his hon. le
learned friend would not persevere in his motion. 'IP'
object of the bill before the house was to repeal Sir JlOlll
Barnard's Act, which involved two principles. One OIL
relation to wagers, and the other to making transactiontniw
the funds gambling. Now, the great purpose of the bin
before the house was to get rid of this latter provision?
which' interdicted transactions in the funds which 'W
bona fide' and which could not be considered as gamblit
for stockbrokers were dealing with property entrusted
them to sell, and which must be considered, in every sells'
of Ilio word, as proper transactions to be dealt in.
The house then divided—
For the adjournment 6O
Against it 153
Majority 93
Lord H. T. THYNNE then moved that the debate ".,
now adjourned.
Sir J. TRELAWNY complained that by these raotionoSe
ho was prevented from bringing on his motion in referell,„t
to church rates. These divisions were intended to tiP"
the Church Rates Bill.
Mr. COLLINS protested against these divisions be---;n1
taken as divisions against the church rate measure. ism.
Mr. MALINS said although he was in favour of the u.,;it
yet at that hour of the morning it ought not to be proe,eetiqua
with. It was always understood that any unopposed
should not be proceeded with after 12 o'clock at night. :ea
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dellL,
that that was ever understood, because, if so, the (loYera,
ment could not carry on the business of the country,„;to
denounced the attempt of a minority, or rather email, Amis('
of members, to obstruct public business, but after what 'ot
occurred, he thought her Majesty's Government would
be justified in proceeding with the bill. wal
After a few words from Sir F. KELLY, the bi
postponed.
The Wino Licenses Bill was postponed till Monday;
On the motion that the Church Rates Abolition In°,
read a third time,
Lord J. MANNERS opposed it, and hoped the b°
baronet would not proceed with it at that hour (ht_ca.
one) of the morning. He moved that the debate e
journed.
After a few words from Mr. BENTINCK, „fee
Lord PALMERSTON said he would be willing 4.1) for
his hon. friend the hon. baronet Tuesday morning nel
the discussion of the bill. (A laugh.)
The house then divided, when the numbers were--
76
For the adjournment
131 -
Against it
Majority
Mr. LYGON then moved the adjournment of thebe°m_.°lse'
upon which a division took place, when the numbers w
73
For the adjournment of the house
124
Against it
Majority
athgraetedthteo,daebnadtethbee
haoraltsi:
itoouAtriniimesdo tevening,aitontw wasoo csnvl
ohe
cxi
kct h. mwaadse
.

BIRTHS.
CALDECOTT.-011 the 18th inst., at Snareabrook, m
Caldecott, of a daughter.
CLARKE le of
.—On the 16th inst., at Southampton, the lo
Captain Clarke, R.E., of a daughter.

MARRIAGES.
MARSHALL —SN OW.—On the 17th inst ,at St. ThotrOP
Devon, Captain Edward Marshall, Royal NavY, °a?:
vinia Maitland, second daughter of Thomas Snow, •na'l"'
of Franklyn.
PRITCHETT —TETLEY.—On tllO 18thinst.,at Christ, ~....111*ch
Forest-hill, Sydenham, Francis Pritchett, of Edmentook
to Louisa, eldest daughter of Edward Tetley, Esgo.
Forest-hill, Kent.

E.
Amos.—On the 18th inDst aitt DT() NiivniSng College, C
Andrew Amos, Esq , Downing Professor of theara
Lbariwasgoei
England. •
HOPE.—On the 17th inst., at Exeter, Colonel John I. fiv,
R.E., aged 64.
Woon.—At Gradfrath, Prussia Commander James +dot
R.N., son of the late John George Wood, Esq.) ag
51.

LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO yOll2,
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office' /4°,:tv,-
Strand, in the Precinct of the Sevoy, in the °°ll-- °
Middlesex; Friday, April 20, 1860.