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

• [Continued from our first page.]
totally insufficient to meet the ordinary demands of the ser-
vice, to say nothing of those extraordinary demands which
might arise from losses by sea, or in time of war from dam-
age if not loss by the enemy—(hear)—and which did arise
from the more rapid decay of the timbers of steam-vessels
occasioned by the heat which was within them, and by the
vibration occasioned by their machinery. The Storekeeper-
General had furnished them with areturn of the supply and
consumption of timber in the navy from the year 1830 to
the present time ; and they also possessed information as to
the number of ships and men in the navy during the same
period. From these facts, which furnished the only elements
for coming to a sound conclusion upon this subject, it was
demonstrable that a store of only 60,000 loads was not suffi-
cient to keep up a supply of timber properly seasoned and
fit for conversion. (Hear.) In 'the period from 1830 to
1844—which included three of the periods of five years into
which the Storekeeper-General had divided the consump-
lion—the greatest number of ships in the navy was 620,
the average number 589, the greatest number of steam-
vessels 112, the average number of men 33,000 (omitting
the odd figures). The permanent establishment of timb.er
was 53,000 loads, and the average yearlyd onsumption
16,200 ; so that the establishment containe crather more
than a supply for three years. Between 1845 and 1854 the
greatest number of vessels at any time in the navy was
690 ; the' greatest number of steamers 205 ; the average
number of vessels of all kinds 655. The number of sea-
men had increased to 43,000. The permanent establish-
ment of timber remained the same as during the previous
15 years, but the average annual consumption had risen to
25,000 loads. He was not seeking to cast blame upon any
particular Board of Admiralty, but only endeavouring to
show that since the necessity for creating a steam navy had
arisen, the stock of timber had not been kept up in propor-
tion to its consumption. In 1845, the consumption of timber
being 25,000 loads per annum and the establishment only
53,000 loads, it was clear that the timber, instead of being
in store between three and four years, could only be there,
upon the average, for a little more than two years. During
the 14 years from 1845 to 1858, both inclusive, the greatest
number of ships in the navy at any time was 927, the ave-
rage number 720, the number of steamships 478—a vast in-
crease in the number of that class of vessels which caused
the greatest consumption of timber—and the number of
seamen 48,000. The establishment of timber up to the be-
ginning of 1858 was, as he had said, 53,000 loads; it was
now 69,000. But what was the annual consumption ? 28,000
loads. Therefore, the stock was still only equal to a little
more than two years' consumption. Nor did that repre-
sent the whole of the case—not by a good deal. The late
First Lord of the Admiralty, when explaining the navy
estimates last year, stated that in the last ten years,
though three line.of-battle ships and a fraction had been
ordered by successive Boards, two and a fraction only had
been produced. Something ought to be allowed for that
deficiency ; and, moreover, if ships were built of green time
ber they could not be expected to last very long. He might
mention another fact. The whole quantity of timber re-
ceived from 1830 to 1858 was 631,000 loads ; the quantity
used in the same period was 636,000 loads ; and in 1859 the
storekeeper had 65,000 loads in hand. It was clear, there-
fore, that in 1830 there must have been a stock of timber
larger than the establishment. But the case did not end
here. Among the papers recently presented there was an
account by the present Surveyor of the Navy of the amount
of timber required to build three line-of-battle ships, one
frigate, and two corvettes, sailing and steam vessels respec-
tively of the same rates. The sailing vessels required 15,700
loads, and the steamvessels 22,000 loads, being a difference
406,300 loads. Seeing, therefore, how our steam navy had
increased, .and what would be the probable expenditure for
the next few years, there could be no doubt that if the sup-
ply of timber had been short hitherto, it would be still
shorter in future. No amount of money, said the Store-
keeper-General, could procure large supplies, consisting ex-
clusively of timber of the largest dimensions, and undoubt-
edly the present wants of the service were not easily met.
England, he added, could not supply them, and cargoes of
shipbuilding timber imported from foreign countries could
not consist only of the largest sizes, even if such timber of
hard and durable quality and unobjectionable weight was
forthcoming in abundance at the ports of shipment.
That was a most important and suggestive statement. We
might get metal to any amount, shipwrights to any num-
ber, but seasoned timber could not be got at all, and the sup-
ply of raw timber was not over-abundant. A gallant Ad-
miral bad said that England might lose the command of
the Channel. Suppose our supply of timber from abroad
was interrupted even for a few months. That was a con-
tingency which ought to be guarded against, and we could
guard against it only by having in stock a supply of timber
sufficient to meet, not only the ordinary demands of the ser-
vice, but any extraordinary demand which might suddenly
come upon us. He did not think that 60,000 loads would
make a proper establishment of timber, especially when dis-
tributed among six dockyards, for if the aggregate supply
was insufficient it would be still more so when divided into
half-a-dozen parts. There was another point to which he
wished to direct attention. It appeared from the Parlia-
mentary Paper No. 174 of the present year4.hat the average
expense of repairing 203 steamvessels in commission, ex-
cluding labour, was £325 each, while the cost of maintain-
ing 211 vessels in ordinary was £449. That showed the
necessity of keeping up an ample supply of timber in stock,
whether our ships were in commission or in ordinary. By
putting the figures together the average might be found,
and it showed that even if this country should be fortunate
enough to be able to dispense with having so large a number
of ships in commission, it must not be concluded that the
vessels not in use would not be the occasion of great expense.
(Hear.) He had the figures with respect to sailing ships, but
as they were not accurately given he was unable to draw
any conclusion from them ; but the figures in respect to the
steam vessels were quite enough to show what the fact was,
and that even if the number of men were reduced to the
average of the last few years, it must not be supposed that
the expense of maintaining the vessels would bo got rid of.
(Hear.) The whole expense of putting the establishment
of timber in a proper state would be simply an expense once
for all of about £300,000 or £400,000. But, whatever might
be the cost, the country would be secure, with a proper
store of timber, of having well -seasoned materials for the
werk to bo done. (Hear.) •
Mr. W. WILLIAMS thought the house should bo dis-
tinctly informed by the Secretary to the Admiralty what
course the Admiralty intended to pursue in reference to the
very important report made by the commissioners appointed
to inquire into the dockyards. Those commissioners stated
that 10 per cent. of tho expenditure in building new ships
might be saved. No one was more anxious than he to see
the navy maintained in au efficient state, but nevertheless
he considered it high time that the expenditure incurred
year after year for the navy should be inquired into. From
1832, the commencement of the reformed Parliment, to
1838, the average expenditure on the navy in those seven
years was £4,770,000; the expenditure on the navy in
1858-9, only two years ago, was £8,800,000, and in the pre-
sent year the expenditure was estimated at £12,800,000. It
seemed as if they were preparing for war against some
nation, and he knew not what nation that could be unless it
were France ; yet the French naval expenditure during the
last seven years had been much less than the English. The
two countries were carrying on a sort of contest as to which
Of them should have the most efficient and the largest num-
ber of screw ships of warrand yet the French had placed us
in fear by a navy which had cost just one-half of ours.
What was still more extraordinary, the of the
French navy in 1858-.9 was i
esti-
mates for the present , year the wages and
victualsa in our
lon
amounted to £4,900,000. The gallant admiral (Sir
111.1.
Seymour) had spoken in high terms of the character of the
shipbuilding carried on in our yards ; but how was it that
the cost of building varied so much at these establishments ?
• By returns which had been published it appeared that the
cost of shipwrights' labour upon vessels of precisely the
same tonnage and character was at Chatham £4 Bs. 2d. per
ton ; at Devonr ort, £4los. ; at Sheerness, £6 2s. 7d. ; and
at Woolwich, £6 18s. How did this arise ? Not, he pre-
• fumed, from higher wages paid ; but, at any rate, the fact
„remained, and monstrous it was, that at Woolwich ship-
imilding cost 50 per cent. more than at Chatham. There
must evidently be something wrong somewhere. With
regard to the timber, it quite puzzled him to account for the
vast quantity which had been paid for by the country.
At the termination of the French war we had 240 sail of the
line, while now we had only 59 afloat and on the stocks,
and yet in the interval, notwithstanding this vast
diminution, £88,000,000 had been expended upon
timber and wages for the construction of ships in
our dockyards. He thought there must have been
gross mismanagement. No attempt, however, was
made to check the system until tho late commission ;
and he thought, after the disclosures which they had made,
it was high time that this house should interpose to prevent
the mismanagement which [prevailed in our dockyards. A
commission of efficient men, who thoroughly understood
every branch of the subject,would probably do more effectual
service with this view than even a committee of the house.
(Hear.)

Sir H. LEEKE urged the necessity of having efficient
fpla ships in our ports, these vessels being the groundwork
ofa r
fleet. At every port there should be two, and these
would form a fleet ready for any emergency. With regard
to corporal punishment, he had lived much among seamen,
and took -
a deep interest in their welfare, but he did not
think that the use of the lash ought to be abolished, nor was
this the wish of the° men themselves. Being in conversation
with some of them
wee rreeently, they gave him clearly to under-
stand that they favourable to the retention of corporal
punishment, and he was desiredto express their views upon
believed the point. For himself, he that the abolition of
flogging would be fraught with danger. On board a 90-gun
s
ship recently the crew were made so uncomfortable
that ncomfortable by the
e.
f the some of them
misbehaviour of the newly-raised m
came aft and complained to the officer watch, stating
that they should never be comfortable until those men were
man, and the
punished. The captain was not a flogging m
thing went on, until at last the captain declared that the
next offender should be severely punished. The man was
flogged accordingly, to the great delight of the crew gene-
rally—if a punishment so barbarous could over be witnessed
with delight; and the consequence was that the vessel
was now one of the best-ordered ships in the service. He
was not a punishing man, and his experience taught him
that corporal punishment might almost be abolished. With
respect to captains on the reserved list, he thought they